GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Max
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Qwen3.7 Max on coding, 82.4 to 54.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.7 Max costs 2.3x less per output token ($4.425 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 36 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.7 Max: which to pick
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol for coding: it scores 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 54.1 for Qwen3.7 Max.
Pick Qwen3.7 Max for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($4.425 vs $10.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 36
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 62
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 23
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 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
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol scores 82.4 against 54.1.
5 and 3 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 29.5.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.7 Max has a AA Agentic Index result, 22.5.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Qwen3.7 Max has a GPQA Diamond result, 90.2%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Qwen3.7 Max has a MMLU Pro result, 89.3%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 1321 against 1274.
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
Qwen3.7 Max
GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070, Qwen3.7 Max $0.0037 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.7 Max has the number, $4.69.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks, Qwen3.7 Max 54.1 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 43.1 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ProofBench: GPT-6.1 Sol 99.0% against Qwen3.7 Max 26.0%, 73.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 against Qwen3.7 Max $4.425 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.7 Max 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 | Qwen3.7 Max | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 7 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 6 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 5 | 0 | ||
| Math | 4 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 2 | 0 | ||
| Web design | 6 | 0 | ||
| General | 4 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 36 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index70
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 96.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | 1515 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 66.0 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 87.1% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.8% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 55.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 88.9% | 47.7% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 65.1% | 13.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.0% | Only Qwen3.7 Max 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% | 49.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 50.8% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2743.8 | 1189.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1478 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1476 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1754 | 1514 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1800 | 1512 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| 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 16 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 51.8 | 29.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 168.4 | 154.0 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 22.5 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1306 | 1208 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1191 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1213 | 1155 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1159 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1187 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | Not measured | 1161 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | Not measured | 1108 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | Not measured | 1171 | Only Qwen3.7 Max 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% | 47.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 21.8% | 15.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | 25.5% | 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% | 57.0% | 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 | 94.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| APEX-Agents | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | 24.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 90.2% | Only Qwen3.7 Max 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 |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 92.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 52.9% | 40.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 95.4% | 90.9% | 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 |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 70.4% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Chess puzzles | 68.0% | 26.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Mystery game puzzles | 80.0% | 32.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| EBR-bench | 54.3% | 9.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1463 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1489 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1465 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| 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 5 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 95.6% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 93.7% | 64.6% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | 34.1% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| ProofBench | 99.0% | 26.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: math | 1489 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1513 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 89.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.9% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 63.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 75.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 48.8% | 38.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | 55.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: science | 1444 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1433 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1471 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1445 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 75.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | 1274 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1317 | 1267 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1389 | 1264 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1281 | 1275 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1460 | 1265 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1345 | 1275 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1216 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1211 | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| LiveBench design | 82.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | 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% | 79.4% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| IFBench | Not measured | 80.5% | Only Qwen3.7 Max measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | 79.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 92.3% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 62.8% | 44.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Furniture assembly | 80.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1443 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1466 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1425 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1450 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1433 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1487 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1460 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1439 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1457 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1442 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1458 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1444 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | Not measured | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| 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 19 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.7 Max | 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
Qwen3.7 Max costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max 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 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 29, 2026 | May 21, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $1.475 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $4.425 |
| Coding index | 82.4 | 54.1 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 5 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $4.69 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen3.7 Max for coding?
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol for coding: it scores 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 54.1 for Qwen3.7 Max. Pick Qwen3.7 Max for output tokens 2.3x cheaper ($4.425 vs $10.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.7 Max?
GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max costs $1.475 and $4.425. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.7 Max only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.7 Max?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Max comparison based on?
36 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 Qwen3.7 Max's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.