Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.1-Codex vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.1-Codex OpenAI

38.2

Rank #178 Reported

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.3 to 41.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 9% for GPT-5.1-Codex and 16% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
  • GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.245.3
Released2025-11-122026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.49
Results tracked628

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.7 (#107), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev13371592
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)66%—
SciCode—46.6%
LMArena Coding—1487
ALE-Bench1,245—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: 37.8 (#32), Qwen3.8 27B: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
Terminal-Bench60.4%—
METR Time Horizons70.8%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1459
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

GPT-5.1-Codex: 29.3 (#218), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
ProofBench9%16%
LMArena Math—1453

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1270

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1431
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1468
LMArena German—1435
LMArena Japanese—1392
LMArena Korean—1389
LMArena Russian—1421
LMArena Spanish—1444

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1436

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1448

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1382
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1443

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 41.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1-Codex and Qwen3.8 27B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1-Codex has 6 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper