Model comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 81.9 to 41.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 80% for GPT-6.1 Sol and 19% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 65.6 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-29 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 29 |
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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1755 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1487 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| DeepSWE | 75.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | — |
| SciCode | 55.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 60% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 32% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 95.5% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 61% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1466 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 80% | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 166.09 | 149.24 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 94.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 54.3% | — |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |
Math GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1464 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 93.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.4% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1478 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 80% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1487 |
| LMArena Russian | 1455 | 1445 |
| LMArena French | — | 1449 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1454 |
Instruction Following GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1468 | 1438 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1447 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1432 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 63.2 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.