Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.1 #94 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.6-27B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to GPT-5.1; 37 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- GPT-5.1 only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-27B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 53.82 versus 53.65. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.6-27B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 89.2 against 26.4.
GPT-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for GPT-5.1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GPT-5.1 | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.126.4 | Margin→ 62.8 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.1$1.25 input / $10 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.1111 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.157.47 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.1200K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.0% | 27.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 81.9% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 41.24% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 24.4% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 987 | 1140 | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 24.61% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.4% | 53.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.3% | 39.8% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.9% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.3% | 84.2% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 26.5% | 21.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 5.6% | -19.8% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 37.6% | 19.2% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.3% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 31.034% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 12.500% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 74.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1217 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.9% | 67.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 53.65.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.1 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 26.4. GPT-5.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.