GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Updated October 21, 2026. 57 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-6.1 Sol for coding: it scores 88.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 37.4 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus when output tokens cost 5.1x less, or when the benchmark that matters is LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 57
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 38
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 26
- 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-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol scores 88.7 against 37.4.
2 and 1 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 27.0.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a GPQA Diamond result, 87.4%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a AIME result, 94.6%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has a MMLU Pro result, 87.7%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 1321 against 1243.
Same board, both measured
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 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus
GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070, Qwen3.6 Plus $0.0013 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.6 Plus has the number, $1.19.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-6.1 Sol 88.7 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 Plus 37.4 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Coding, 30.4 points apart on average over 10 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: GPT-6.1 Sol 2743.8 against Qwen3.6 Plus 670.1, 69.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 against Qwen3.6 Plus $1.95 per million output tokens, 5.1x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
| Category | GPT-6.1 Sol | Bars | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 10 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 4 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 7 | 0 | ||
| Math | 4 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 5 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 6 | 0 | ||
| General | 18 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 56 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index100
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 96.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | 1461 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 54.5 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 86.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 73.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 55.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 88.9% | 25.6% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 65.1% | 11.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 3.0% | 0.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 96.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus 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 |
| SciCode | 55.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 43.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2743.8 | 670.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1478 | 1467 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1476 | 1462 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1754 | 1454 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1800 | 1463 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1702 | 1472 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 51.8 | 27.0 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 168.4 | 147.3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1190 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1250 | 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% | 40.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 21.8% | 7.7% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | 14.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 6.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 70.8% | 32.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| 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 | 97.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| APEX-Agents | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | 24.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Not measured | $5,115 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 87.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| 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 |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 88.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 52.9% | 27.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 95.4% | 88.4% | 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% | 14.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Mystery game puzzles | 80.0% | 12.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| EBR-bench | 54.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1463 | 1448 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1489 | 1454 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1465 | 1455 | 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 4 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 94.6% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 93.3% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 93.7% | 38.2% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | 99.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1489 | 1449 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1513 | 1448 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 87.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 51.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 74.7% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 48.8% | 36.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | 44.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: science | 1444 | 1439 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1433 | 1442 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1471 | 1437 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1445 | 1430 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | 1243 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1321 | 1233 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1389 | 1211 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1278 | 1228 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1461 | 1202 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1345 | 1236 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1160 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1115 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LiveBench design | 82.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index180
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | 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% | 44.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 86.5% | 77.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 51.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 75.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | 78.3% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 81.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 62.8% | 33.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| CL-bench | Not measured | 20.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| Furniture assembly | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1436 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | 1424 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1425 | 1404 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1450 | 1445 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1433 | 1424 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1487 | 1477 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1451 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1390 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1379 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | 1455 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1439 | 1432 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1457 | 1434 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1433 | Only Qwen3.6 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1442 | 1438 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1458 | 1439 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1444 | 1418 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | 1402 | 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | 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 Plus costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 29, 2026 | April 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $1.95 |
| Coding index | 88.7 | 37.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.19 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen3.6 Plus for coding?
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol for coding: it scores 88.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 37.4 for Qwen3.6 Plus. Pick Qwen3.6 Plus when output tokens cost 5.1x less, or when the benchmark that matters is LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.325 and $1.95. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 Plus only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus comparison based on?
57 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 Plus's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.