Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-6.1 Sol OpenAI

65.6

Rank #6 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 81.9 to 20.7.
  • Both cost about the same: $2 input and $10 output per million tokens.
  • GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index65.629.9
Released2026-09-292024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$10$8.40
Results tracked346

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), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
DeepSWE75.2%—
FrontierCode50.2%—
LMArena WebDev1755—
SciCode55.8%—
LMArena Coding1487—

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
APEX-Agents60%—
OSWorld—5%
GDP.pdf32%—

Reasoning GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ARC-AGI-294.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—36%
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), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
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), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond95.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.9%—
LMArena Expert1502—

Multimodal GPT-6.1 Sol leads

GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision12881107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
Furniture Assembly80%—
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1438—
LMArena Chinese1477—
LMArena Russian1455—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1468—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1465—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1447—
LMArena Creative Writing1432—
LMArena Multi-Turn1449—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

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-VL 72B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper