Model comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#153); GPT-6.1 Sol does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GPT-6.1 Sol OpenAI

42.1

Unranked Sparse

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 51.4 to 34.9.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-6.1 Sol and QwQ-32B specifications
GPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.139.4
Released2026-09-292024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$10—
Results tracked236

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, QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
DeepSWE75.2%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: 34.3, QwQ-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
GDP.pdf32%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1326
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
LMArena Expert—1323

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1306
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1337
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-6.1 Sol: —, QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#153); GPT-6.1 Sol does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is GPT-6.1 Sol or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.4 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and QwQ-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 2 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper