Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen2.5-Max

GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GPT-6.1 Sol OpenAI

65.6

Rank #6 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 93.7 to 36.9.

Side by side

GPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index65.640.7
Released2026-09-292025-01-25
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$10—
Results tracked3427

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: 63.2 (#8), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding14871359
DeepSWE75.2%—
FrontierCode50.2%—
LMArena WebDev1755—
SciCode55.8%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
APEX-Agents60%—
GDP.pdf32%—

Reasoning GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14661360
Epoch Capabilities Index166.09132.53
ARC-AGI-294.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)95.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles61%—
EBR-Bench54.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
Mystery Game Puzzles80%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
LiveBench—62.3%

Math GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math14641369
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)93.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4100%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench99%—
LiveBench Math—58.4%

Knowledge GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert15021337
GPQA Diamond95.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.9%—
Confabulations—21.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Vision1288—
Furniture Assembly80%—

Multilingual GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English14381352
LMArena Chinese14771382
LMArena Russian14551353
LMArena French—1396
LMArena German—1350
LMArena Japanese—1300
LMArena Korean—1304
LMArena Spanish—1377

Instruction Following GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following14681335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query14651358

Writing & Preference GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text14471367
LMArena Creative Writing14321339
LMArena Multi-Turn14491364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen2.5-Max?

GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 63.2 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen2.5-Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper