Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1-Codex vs Saba

Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.1-CodexOpenAI
Coding
15.3
Overall
23.7
Output $/M
$10.00
4
SabaMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.5
Output $/M
$0.60
0
vs boards won of 4 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Saba has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Saba has the edge where output tokens cost 16.7x less.

Shared results
4
GPT-5.1-Codex only
22
Saba only
0
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-5.1-Codex 15.3 from 2 benchmarks, Saba not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 32.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-5.1-Codex 86.0% against Saba 42.4%, 43.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 against Saba $0.60 per million output tokens, 16.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1-Codex takes 400K tokens, Saba 33K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-5.1-CodexBarsSabaTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
Knowledge10
All shared boards40
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
SWE-bench Verified66.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev1337Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)85.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)13.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)84.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)34.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench57.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
ALE-Bench1244.9Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1346Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
AA Intelligence Index23.76.5GPT-5.1-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1018Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1086Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1191Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
τ²-Bench Telecom83.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%42.4%GPT-5.1-Codex
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)25.7%4.3%GPT-5.1-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
AA Math Index95.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)95.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%61.1%GPT-5.1-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
Design Arena: websites1162Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: UI components1237Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: game dev1138Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: data viz1213Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: all code categories1152Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
IFBench70.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexSabaLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex$0.0063Fits in one request
Saba$0.0005Fits in one request

Saba costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex$0.092Fits in one request
Saba$0.012Exceeds the context window

Saba costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex$0.350Fits in one request
Saba$0.046Exceeds the context window

Saba costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GPT-5.1-Codex and Saba
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1-CodexMistral Saba
MakerOpenAIMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025February 17, 2025
Context window400K33K
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.20
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.60
Coding index15.3Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved task$0.892Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Saba for coding?

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Saba has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Saba has the edge where output tokens cost 16.7x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Saba?

GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Saba costs $0.20 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1-Codex or Saba?

GPT-5.1-Codex, with 400K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1-Codex vs Saba comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.1-Codex's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Saba's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next