Model comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 81.9 to 22.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 61% for GPT-6.1 Sol and 8% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 41K.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 65.6 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-29 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 41K |
| Max output | 128K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 32 |
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), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 55.8% | 33.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1487 | 1416 |
| DeepSWE | 75.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1755 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 29.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 60% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
| GDP.pdf | 32% | — |
Reasoning GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 61% | 8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1466 | 1398 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 166.09 | 139.63 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 94.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 95.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 54.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 80% | — |
| DTBench | — | 69.3% |
| LMCA | — | 22.4% |
Math GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 70.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1464 | 1394 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 93.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 100% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
Knowledge GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.4% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1396 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Qwen3-30B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 80% | — |
Multilingual GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1433 |
| LMArena Russian | 1455 | 1370 |
| LMArena French | — | 1418 |
| LMArena German | — | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1331 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1404 |
Instruction Following GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1468 | 1363 |
Long Context GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1379 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
Writing & Preference GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1447 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1432 | 1317 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1378 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 38.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-30B-A3B costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 63.2 versus 37.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.