Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | — | 0.5B/1.8B/4B/7B/14B/72B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 400k | 32k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $10.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.125 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.625OpenAI | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00OpenAI | — |
| $750OpenAI list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 25% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76.3% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.1% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 76% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Nov 12 2025 | Feb 4 2024 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen1.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.1vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen1.5vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.1vsMuse Spark OpenQwen1.5vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.1vsGrok 4.7Qwen1.5vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen1.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.1vsMistral Large 4Qwen1.5vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.1 and Qwen1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen1.5. Qwen1.5 shipped 647 days before GPT-5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.1) vs 32k (Qwen1.5). GPT-5.1 is closed, while Qwen1.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.1 and Qwen1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.