GPT-5 vs GPT-5.1
Updated October 21, 2026. 94 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick GPT-5 for coding: it scores 72.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 53.3 for GPT-5.1.
Pick GPT-5.1 when what matters is AA Coding Index or LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 94
- GPT-5 only
- 15
- GPT-5.1 only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
GPT-5
GPT-5 scores 72.2 against 53.3.
3 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 leads, 24.7 against 23.0.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 leads, 86.6% against 85.6%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
GPT-5
GPT-5 leads, 93.4% against 93.3%.
Same board, both measured
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GPT-5
GPT-5 leads, 86.5% against 86.4%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 leads, 1187 against 1185.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 400K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
No call
GPT-5 $0.0063, GPT-5.1 $0.0063 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
GPT-5
GPT-5 $0.39, GPT-5.1 $1.02.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5 72.2 from 3 benchmarks, GPT-5.1 53.3 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 5.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: Chinese: GPT-5 1422 against GPT-5.1 1495, 12.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Both cost $10.00 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Both take 400K tokens.
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 | Bars | GPT-5.1 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 4 | 10 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 4 | 11 | 1 tie | |
| Math | 4 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 5 | 9 | ||
| Web design | 5 | 3 | ||
| General | 4 | 27 | ||
| All shared boards | 29 | 64 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index410
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.4% | 66.0% | GPT-5 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1418 | 1396 | GPT-5 |
| AA Coding Index | 37.8 | 49.4 | GPT-5.1 |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 85.9% | 86.5% | GPT-5.1 |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 69.0% | 69.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 20.1% | 24.6% | GPT-5.1 |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.6% | 86.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 37.9% | 45.5% | GPT-5.1 |
| Terminal-Bench | 49.6% | 47.6% | GPT-5 |
| GSO-Bench | 6.9% | 13.7% | GPT-5.1 |
| WeirdML | 60.7% | 60.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| ALE-Bench | 807.6 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1436 | 1453 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1420 | 1454 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1307 | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1427 | 1405 | GPT-5 |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1421 | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 23.0 | 24.7 | GPT-5.1 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.0 | 149.8 | GPT-5 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 86.5% | 81.9% | GPT-5 |
| METR time horizons | 69.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| Remote Labor Index | 1.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| GDPval | 34.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| BALROG | 32.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | 49.6% | 42.8% | GPT-5 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $1,473 | Only GPT-5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index411
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.6% | 86.6% | GPT-5.1 |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 81.5% | 83.2% | GPT-5.1 |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.4% | 87.3% | GPT-5.1 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 28.5% | 28.5% | Tie |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 86.2% | 87.6% | GPT-5.1 |
| ARC-AGI | 65.7% | 72.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 9.9% | 17.6% | GPT-5.1 |
| SimpleBench | 56.7% | 53.2% | GPT-5 |
| Chess puzzles | 36.0% | 42.0% | GPT-5.1 |
| Mystery game puzzles | 23.0% | 19.0% | GPT-5 |
| EBR-bench | 12.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| VPCT | 66.0% | 58.7% | GPT-5 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1415 | 1457 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1419 | 1470 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1419 | 1462 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1252 | 1264 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1278 | 1272 | GPT-5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index43
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 93.4% | 93.3% | GPT-5 |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 96.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 92.8% | 93.0% | GPT-5.1 |
| AA Math Index | 94.3 | 94.0 | GPT-5 |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 94.3% | 94.0% | GPT-5 |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.4% | 88.6% | GPT-5 |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 55.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 22.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| ProofBench | 18.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| MATH level 5 | 98.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1407 | 1446 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1405 | 1449 | GPT-5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index59
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.5% | 86.4% | GPT-5 |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 86.0% | 85.7% | GPT-5 |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 66.5% | 73.4% | GPT-5.1 |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 61.1% | 63.8% | GPT-5.1 |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 73.4% | 74.9% | GPT-5.1 |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 65.5% | 61.4% | GPT-5 |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 96.3% | 96.4% | GPT-5.1 |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 49.6% | 52.7% | GPT-5.1 |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 87.1% | 87.0% | GPT-5 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 50.1% | 48.0% | GPT-5 |
| GeoBench | 81.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1416 | 1459 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1413 | 1456 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1431 | 1459 | GPT-5.1 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1400 | 1431 | GPT-5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index53
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1185 | 1187 | GPT-5.1 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1179 | 1166 | GPT-5 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1185 | 1179 | GPT-5 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1221 | 1204 | GPT-5 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1056 | 1061 | GPT-5.1 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1168 | 1171 | GPT-5.1 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1188 | 1149 | GPT-5 |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1140 | 1118 | GPT-5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index427
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | GPT-5.1 | 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
Same cost
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Same cost
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Same cost
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 | OpenAI GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | August 7, 2025 | November 13, 2025 |
| Context window | 400K | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.25 | $1.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $10.00 |
| Coding index | 72.2 | 53.3 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.39 | $1.02 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5 better than GPT-5.1 for coding?
Pick GPT-5 for coding: it scores 72.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 53.3 for GPT-5.1. Pick GPT-5.1 when what matters is AA Coding Index or LiveCodeBench (Vals AI), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5 or GPT-5.1?
GPT-5 costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 costs $1.25 and $10.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5 costs $0.39 and GPT-5.1 $1.02.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5 or GPT-5.1?
Neither: both take 400K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5 vs GPT-5.1 comparison based on?
94 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.1's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.