Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.1-Codex vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.1-Codex OpenAI

38.6

Rank #186 Reported

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 50.5 to 30.3.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.

Side by side

GPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.645.3
Released2025-11-122026-06-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window400K1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.60
Results tracked632

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads

GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
FrontierCode—10.2%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)66%—
LMArena WebDev1337—
SciCode—45.5%
LMArena Coding—1473
ALE-Bench1,245—

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.1-Codex leads

GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
Terminal-Bench60.4%—
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%
METR Time Horizons70.8%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
ProofBench9%—
LMArena Math—1466

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond—87.9%
LMArena Expert—1467

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English—1445
LMArena Chinese—1510
LMArena French—1473
LMArena German—1471
LMArena Japanese—1413
LMArena Korean—1415
LMArena Russian—1457
LMArena Spanish—1457

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following—1440

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query—1455

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text—1455
LMArena Creative Writing—1439
LMArena Multi-Turn—1460

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1-Codex and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1-Codex has 6 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper