Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 49.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where GPT-5.1 leads 83.9 to 75.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 32% for GPT-5.1 and 20% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 49.0 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| 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: 32.7 (#60), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | 4,254 |
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | 63% |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 19% |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.64 | 149.24 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| CritPt | 4.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | 4.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1478 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1450 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1438 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | — |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1443 | 1438 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1447 | 1457 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1450 | 1456 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 49.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 46.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.