GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 27B
GPT-5.1 leads Qwen3.6 27B on coding, 40.4 to 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.6 27B costs 3.7x less per output token ($2.70 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 21 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick
Pick GPT-5.1 for coding: it scores 40.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 36.8 for Qwen3.6 27B.
Pick Qwen3.6 27B for output tokens 3.7x cheaper ($2.70 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 21
- GPT-5.1 only
- 85
- Qwen3.6 27B only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 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
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 scores 40.4 against 36.8.
3 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 leads, 24.7 against 21.4.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 18.5.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-5.1 has a GPQA Diamond result, 86.6%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-5.1 has a AIME result, 93.3%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-5.1 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.4%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-5.1 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1187.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 takes 400K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 27B
GPT-5.1 $0.0063, Qwen3.6 27B $0.0018 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 $1.02, Qwen3.6 27B $1.30.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.1 40.4 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 12.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- CaseLaw (Vals AI): GPT-5.1 73.4% against Qwen3.6 27B 53.2%, 20.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.1 $10.00 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.1 takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 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 | Bars | Qwen3.6 27B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 4 | 0 | ||
| Math | 0 | 1 | ||
| Knowledge | 3 | 1 | ||
| General | 4 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 15 | 6 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index22
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 66.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1396 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| AA Coding Index | 49.4 | 53.7 | Qwen3.6 27B |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 86.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 69.8% | 70.0% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 24.6% | 11.9% | GPT-5.1 |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 86.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 42.8% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 45.5% | 34.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| GSO-Bench | 13.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1453 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1454 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1307 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1405 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1421 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 24.7 | 21.4 | GPT-5.1 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.8 | 146.2 | GPT-5.1 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 18.5 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 81.9% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $1,473 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MCP Atlas | 50.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 83.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 87.3% | 84.2% | GPT-5.1 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 28.5% | 23.1% | GPT-5.1 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 87.6% | 85.9% | GPT-5.1 |
| ARC-AGI | 72.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 42.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 19.0% | 7.0% | GPT-5.1 |
| VPCT | 58.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1457 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1470 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1463 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1264 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1272 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 93.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 93.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| AA Math Index | 94.0 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 94.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 88.6% | 91.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 35.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1446 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1449 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MathArena | 17.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index31
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 85.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 73.4% | 53.2% | GPT-5.1 |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 63.8% | 62.3% | GPT-5.1 |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 74.9% | 71.3% | GPT-5.1 |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 61.4% | 68.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 96.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 52.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 87.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1460 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1457 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1459 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1431 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 45.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| PRBench Finance | 48.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| PRBench Legal | 49.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1187 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1164 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1178 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1205 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1062 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1170 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1149 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1118 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 43.2% | 45.6% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| IFBench | 72.9% | 67.6% | GPT-5.1 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 80.0% | 77.3% | GPT-5.1 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 78.1% | GPT-5.1 |
| LMCA | 43.9% | 34.5% | GPT-5.1 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1443 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1443 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1427 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1451 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1431 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1495 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1438 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1454 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1400 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1450 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1433 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1435 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1440 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1450 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1448 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1428 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1415 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1252 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1270 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1255 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1263 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: captioning | 1252 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1232 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1266 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| MultiChallenge | 63.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| EQ-Bench 4 | Not measured | 1026 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | 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 27B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 27B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 27B 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 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $0.45 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $2.70 |
| Coding index | 40.4 | 36.8 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $1.02 | $1.30 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?
Pick GPT-5.1 for coding: it scores 40.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 36.8 for Qwen3.6 27B. Pick Qwen3.6 27B for output tokens 3.7x cheaper ($2.70 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6 27B?
GPT-5.1 costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.1 costs $1.02 and Qwen3.6 27B $1.30.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6 27B?
GPT-5.1, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?
21 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. GPT-5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.