Updated November 13, 2026. Rank says GPT-6.1 Sol is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher public score estimate, 84.6 versus 79.03, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 16 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Gemini 4 Argon: $2 input / $10 output
GPT-6.1 Sol: $2 input / $10 output
Gemini 4 Argon: 1M
GPT-6.1 Sol: 1.05M
Gemini 4 Argon: September 30, 2026
GPT-6.1 Sol: September 29, 2026
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 73.4 to 71.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public agentic point estimate, 74.9 to 65.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 22.0AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 15.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 7.7ARC-AGI-3Reasoning
Normalized gap 6.5ARC-AGI-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 2.9Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Gemini 4 Argon | GPT-6.1 Sol | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 74.9Supported · #6/135 | 65.7Supported · #17/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 13 vs 7 public rows | Gemini 4 Argon leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 71.8Supported · #9/162 | 73.4Supported · #8/162 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 6 public rows | GPT-6.1 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 76.5Supported · #7/160 | 80.4Supported · #5/160 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 6 public rows | GPT-6.1 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 79.2Supported · #8/180 | 85.6Supported · #3/180 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 5 public rows | GPT-6.1 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 78.9Supported · #4/67 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 87.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 93.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.
Gemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 Sol
Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.
See Gemini 4 Argon on the full price vs performance chartSourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 4 Argon
GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 4 Argon
gemini-4-argon
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGPT-6.1 Sol
gpt-6.1-sol
OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol model documentationA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-6.1 Sol
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol model documentationGemini 4 Argon
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGPT-6.1 Sol
text, image
OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol model documentationGemini 4 Argon
GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 4 Argon
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGPT-6.1 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API, OpenAI Chat Completions API
OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol model documentationGemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
GPT-6.1 Sol
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
GPT-6.1 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
GPT-6.1 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
2026-09-30
GPT-6.1 Sol
2026-09-29
GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher public score estimate, 84.6 versus 79.03, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 73.4 to 71.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 74.9 to 65.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon and $0.007 on GPT-6.1 Sol; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.16. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
AutomationBench
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
Finance Agent v2
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
GPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
RoboDojo Sim
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Not directly comparable
ScarfBench
Shared sourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
DeepSWE
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Shared sourceGPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
FrontierCode 2.0
Shared sourceGPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench
Shared sourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
VulcanBench Frontier v4
Not directly comparable
STEMBench
Shared sourceGPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
Graphwalks BFS 128K
Not directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
ARC-AGI-3
GPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
BioBasicsBench
Not directly comparable
ParseBench-2
Not directly comparable
ExtractBench Pro
Shared sourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Chartography (no tools)
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Not directly comparable
ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Not directly comparable
ParseBench-1
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGPT-6.1 Sol leads this result
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 13, 2026
