Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Phi 4

Updated October 21, 2026. 30 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI
Coding
82.4
Overall
51.8
Output $/M
$10.00
30
Phi 4Microsoft
Coding
No data
Overall
5.9
Output $/M
$0.14
0
vs boards won of 30 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Phi 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 71.4x less.

Shared results
30
GPT-6.1 Sol only
65
Phi 4 only
15
Like-for-like categories
6 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-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks, Phi 4 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 56.7 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: GPT-6.1 Sol 100.0% against Phi 4 13.8%, 86.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 against Phi 4 $0.14 per million output tokens, 71.4x apart.
Context window
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens, Phi 4 16K.

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-6.1 SolBarsPhi 4Ties
Coding20
Intelligence20
Reasoning50
Math30
Knowledge40
General140
All shared boards300
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
LiveBench coding96.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev1753Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)88.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Code migration (Vals AI)65.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)3.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IOI (Vals AI)96.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)43.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)39.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured23.1%Only Phi 4 measured
SciCode55.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.8%Only Phi 4 measured
FrontierCode50.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ALE-Bench2743.8Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: coding14781231GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: software and IT14761228GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena WebDev: React1754Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1800Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1702Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
AA Intelligence Index51.85.9GPT-6.1 Sol
Epoch Capabilities Index168.4130.5GPT-6.1 Sol
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1200Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1244Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench research83.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench browser88.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench long agentic73.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SREBench (Vals AI)50.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)52.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)21.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)38.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)6.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)70.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)79.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)52.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vals Science Index59.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)28.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured0.0%Only Phi 4 measured
APEX-Agents60.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
BALROGNot measured11.6%Only Phi 4 measured
SpireClimb24.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
LiveBench reasoning92.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)46.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured57.5%Only Phi 4 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)52.9%3.8%GPT-6.1 Sol
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)95.4%56.1%GPT-6.1 Sol
ARC-AGI98.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ARC-AGI-294.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Chess puzzles68.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Mystery game puzzles80.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
EBR-bench54.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14631220GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: expert14891203GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14651230GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: diagrams1306Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: homework1356Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Math benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
AA Math IndexNot measured18.0Only Phi 4 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured18.0%Only Phi 4 measured
OTIS Mock AIME100.0%13.8%GPT-6.1 Sol
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 393.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProofBench99.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MATH level 5Not measured64.9%Only Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: math14891246GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: mathematical work15131254GPT-6.1 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
MedCode (Vals AI)48.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured71.4%Only Phi 4 measured
SimpleQA Verified73.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMLUNot measured84.8%Only Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: science14441206GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14331202GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: legal and government14711241GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: business and finance14451199GPT-6.1 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
Design Arena: websites1320Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: UI components1330Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: game dev1389Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: data viz1280Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: 3D1463Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: all code categories1345Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench design82.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index140
General benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
Vals Index63.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench data analysis82.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)59.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SAGE (Vals AI)46.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)86.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IFBenchNot measured23.5%Only Phi 4 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)84.0%0.0%GPT-6.1 Sol
DTBench96.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMCA62.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured62.6%Only Phi 4 measured
Furniture assembly80.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text14431217GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: instruction following14661201GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: creative writing14251181GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision1288Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: English14501231GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: non-English14331197GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Chinese14871212GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1222Only Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1158Only Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1151Only Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: French14601224GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Spanish14391234GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Russian14571209GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: multi-turn14421206GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: longer queries14581217GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: writing and language14441198GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14261162GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: English1274Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1289Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1301Not measuredOnly GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolPhi 4Leader
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-6.1 Sol$0.0070Fits in one request
Phi 4$0.0001Fits in one request

Phi 4 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-6.1 Sol$0.130Fits in one request
Phi 4$0.0039Exceeds the context window

Phi 4 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-6.1 Sol$0.500Fits in one request
Phi 4$0.015Exceeds the context window

Phi 4 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-6.1 Sol and Phi 4
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-6.1 SolMicrosoft Phi 4
MakerOpenAIMicrosoft
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 29, 2026January 10, 2025
Context window1.05M16K
Input $/Mtok$2.00$0.07
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.14
Coding index82.4Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it50
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Phi 4 for coding?

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Phi 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 71.4x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Phi 4?

GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Phi 4 costs $0.07 and $0.14. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-6.1 Sol or Phi 4?

GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-6.1 Sol vs Phi 4 comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol's coding index rests on 5 independent benchmarks and Phi 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next