GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Qwen2.5 72B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 51.8 to 7.7, and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 25.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 31 benchmarks have a result for both.
vs boards won of 31 shared
GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: which to pick
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million).
Model AGPT-6.1 SolOpenAI82.4/1005 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen2.5 72B InstructQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
- Shared results
- 31
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 67
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
- 22
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 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-6.1 Sol has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 7.7.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Design Arena: websites result, 1321.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Vals Index result, 63.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 54.5 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: GPT-6.1 Sol 100.0% against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 8.1%, 91.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 33K.
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-6.1 Sol | Bars | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 5 | 0 | ||
| Math | 3 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 4 | 0 | ||
| General | 15 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 31 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 96.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 55.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 88.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 65.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 3.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 96.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | 43.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 39.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.6% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| SciCode | 55.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 4.5% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 16.0% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2743.8 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1478 | 1292 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1476 | 1292 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1754 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1800 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1702 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 9.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 51.8 | 7.7 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 168.4 | 129.0 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1213 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1259 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | 83.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 73.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 50.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 52.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 21.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 6.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 70.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 79.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 52.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | 59.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Robo-bench (Vals AI) | 28.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| APEX-Agents | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| METR time horizons | Not measured | 35.8% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| BALROG | Not measured | 16.2% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| TheAgentCompany | Not measured | 5.7% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| SpireClimb | 24.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | 92.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 46.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 49.1% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 52.9% | 3.6% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 95.4% | 49.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| ARC-AGI | 98.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 94.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | 68.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | 54.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BIG-Bench Hard | Not measured | 79.8% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1463 | 1271 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1489 | 1245 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1465 | 1279 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1356 | Not measured | Only 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
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 14.0 | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 14.0% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 8.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 93.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | 99.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 63.2% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1489 | 1283 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1513 | 1290 | GPT-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
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 48.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 72.0% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MMLU | Not measured | 85.3% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| AI2 Reasoning Challenge | Not measured | 94.5% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1444 | 1275 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1433 | 1258 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1471 | 1288 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1445 | 1253 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 75.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1317 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1389 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1281 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1460 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1345 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench design | 82.1% | Not measured | Only 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 index150
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 63.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | 82.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 59.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 46.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 86.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 36.9% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 62.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 62.8% | 13.4% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Furniture assembly | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| HellaSwag | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| WinoGrande | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| PIQA | Not measured | 82.6% | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1269 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | 1254 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1425 | 1221 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1450 | 1283 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1433 | 1252 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1487 | 1273 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1234 | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1180 | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1188 | Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | 1280 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1439 | 1255 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1457 | 1264 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1442 | 1272 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1458 | 1281 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1444 | 1247 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | 1211 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1274 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1289 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1301 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | 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
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.0070Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.130Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.500Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 29, 2026 | September 19, 2024 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.36 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.40 |
| Coding index | 82.4 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 5 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for coding?
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for output tokens 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparison based on?
31 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol's coding index rests on 5 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.