LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.1OpenAI
Coding
53.3
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$10.00
0
Qwen3.8 FlashQwen
Coding
87.4
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.47
0
vs No board has a result for both

Decision reading

GPT-5.1 scores 53.3 and Qwen3.8 Flash 87.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking.

Pick Qwen3.8 Flash when output tokens cost 21.3x less, or when the context window is larger, 1M against 400K tokens.

Shared results
0
GPT-5.1 only
100
Qwen3.8 Flash only
7
Like-for-like categories
0 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 53.3 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.8 Flash 87.4 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
GPT-5.1 $10.00 against Qwen3.8 Flash $0.47 per million output tokens, 21.3x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1 takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.8 Flash 1M.

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.

CodingDirectional onlyFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
SWE-bench Verified66.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveBench codingNot measured87.4%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev1396Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AA Coding Index49.4Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)86.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)24.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench47.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GSO-Bench13.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
WeirdML60.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding1453Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1454Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1307Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1405Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1421Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index24.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench researchNot measured74.6%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench browserNot measured48.0%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured37.1%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
τ²-Bench Telecom81.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench42.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$1,473Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond86.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured87.4%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)87.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)28.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
ARC-AGI72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
ARC-AGI-217.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SimpleBench53.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Chess puzzles42.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
VPCT58.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1457Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1470Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1462Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1264Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1272Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)93.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AA Math Index94.0Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)94.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME88.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1446Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1449Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro86.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)85.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)73.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)63.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)96.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)52.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)87.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified48.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science1459Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1456Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1459Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1431Not measuredOnly 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 index9 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1187Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1166Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1179Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1204Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1061Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1171Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1149Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1118Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveBench designNot measured72.8%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index35 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured74.2%Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
SAGE (Vals AI)43.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
IFBench72.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
DTBench90.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMCA43.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CL-bench23.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CL-bench Life17.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text1443Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1443Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1427Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision1250Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1451Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1431Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1495Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1438Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1453Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1401Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1450Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1433Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1435Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1440Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1450Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1448Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1428Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1415Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: English1252Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1270Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1255Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1263Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1252Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1232Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1266Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Document1403Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Qwen3.8 FlashLeader
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$0.0063Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0004Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.1$0.092Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0089Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.1$0.350Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Flash$0.035Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash 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 and Qwen3.8 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1Qwen3.8 Flash
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025August 26, 2026
Context window400K1M
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.15
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.47
Coding index53.387.4
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$1.02Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1 better than Qwen3.8 Flash for coding?

GPT-5.1 scores 53.3 and Qwen3.8 Flash 87.4 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking. Pick Qwen3.8 Flash when output tokens cost 21.3x less, or when the context window is larger, 1M against 400K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

GPT-5.1 costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.47. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 Flash's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next