Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 63× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 50.3 to 37.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 32% for GPT-5.1 and 23% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.8 | 39.5 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | — |
| SciCode | 43.3% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: 27.3 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | 23% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.66 | 144.62 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| CritPt | 4.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45), Qwen3.7 Flash: 37.3 (#100)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1446 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | — |
| LMArena French | 1451 | — |
| LMArena German | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1430 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1442 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | — |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 63× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.