Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen-VL Max

GPT-6.1 Sol has enough public results to be ranked (#6); Qwen-VL Max does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-6.1 Sol OpenAI

65.6

Rank #6 Confirmed

Qwen-VL Max Alibaba (Qwen)

35.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 1 category and Qwen-VL Max in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multimodal, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 52.7 to 32.3.
  • Qwen-VL Max is cheaper at $0.80 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
  • GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

GPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index65.635.9
Released2026-09-292024-01-18
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.80
Output $ / M tokens$10$3.20
Results tracked343

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.2 (#8), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
DeepSWE75.2%—
FrontierCode50.2%—
LMArena WebDev1755—
SciCode55.8%—
LMArena Coding1487—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
APEX-Agents60%—
GDP.pdf32%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
ARC-AGI-294.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)95.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles61%—
EBR-Bench54.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1466—
Mystery Game Puzzles80%—
Epoch Capabilities Index166.09—

Math Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)93.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4100%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench99%—
LMArena Math1464—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
GPQA Diamond95.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.9%—
LMArena Expert1502—

Multimodal GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Qwen-VL Max: 32.3 (#101)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
LMArena Vision12881213
Video-MME—51.3%
Furniture Assembly80%—
SpatialViz-Bench—32%

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
LMArena Non-English1438—
LMArena Chinese1477—
LMArena Russian1455—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
LMArena Instruction Following1468—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
LMArena Longer Query1465—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Qwen-VL Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen-VL Max
LMArena Text1447—
LMArena Creative Writing1432—
LMArena Multi-Turn1449—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen-VL Max?

GPT-6.1 Sol has enough public results to be ranked (#6); Qwen-VL Max does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen-VL Max?

Qwen-VL Max is cheaper. It lists at $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen-VL Max share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-VL Max has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper