GPT-5.1-Codex vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
GPT-5.1-Codex leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 23.7 to 18.2, and Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 10.0x less per output token ($1.00 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($1.00 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or Long context reasoning (AA-LCR), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 8
- GPT-5.1-Codex only
- 18
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.1-Codex
GPT-5.1-Codex leads, 23.7 against 18.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a AA Agentic Index result, 13.1.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a Design Arena: websites result, 1161.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.1-Codex
GPT-5.1-Codex takes 400K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
GPT-5.1-Codex $0.0063, Qwen3.6 35B A3B $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has the number, $0.892.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.1-Codex 15.3 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 16.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Terminal-Bench: GPT-5.1-Codex 57.8% against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 24.6%, 33.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.1-Codex takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 262K.
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.
| Category | GPT-5.1-Codex | Bars | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | 1 tie | |
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 5 | 2 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 66.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1337 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 41.9 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 85.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 13.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 36.6% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 34.8% | 34.8% | Tie |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.8% | 24.6% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| ALE-Bench | 1244.9 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1346 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 23.7 | 18.2 | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 143.7 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 13.1 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1018 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1086 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1191 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 83.0% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 86.0% | 84.1% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 25.7% | 22.2% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 22.0% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 95.7 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 95.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 20.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 86.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1161 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1234 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1137 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1213 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1152 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 70.0% | 64.4% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 69.3% | 71.7% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| DTBench | Not measured | 73.9% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 44.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | November 13, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $1.00 |
| Coding index | 15.3 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.892 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($1.00 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by τ²-Bench Telecom or Long context reasoning (AA-LCR), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1-Codex only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
GPT-5.1-Codex, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1-Codex vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B comparison based on?
8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.1-Codex's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.