Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen Max
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 50.3 to 21.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 88.6% for GPT-5.1 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.8 | 34.4 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#288)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1288 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | — |
| SciCode | 43.3% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50), Qwen Max: 24.1 (#154)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1270 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| CritPt | 4.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.66 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45), Qwen Max: 21.0 (#272)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1446 | 1275 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | 1% |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#222)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1248 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51), Qwen Max: 42.0 (#197)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1329 |
| LMArena German | 1439 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1430 | 1290 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1), Qwen Max: 66.7 (#203)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1442 | 1262 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#175)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | 1289 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53), Qwen Max: 48.0 (#200)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1277 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Qwen Max?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1 or Qwen Max better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Qwen Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.