Model comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); GPT-6.1 Sol does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 51.4 to 35.9.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 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.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.1 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-29 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 2 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 51.4, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 75.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 34.3, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
Reasoning Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); GPT-6.1 Sol does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.4 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
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 Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 2 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.