Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 27B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1.05M | 262k |
| 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. | $2.00 | — |
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. | $0.10 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $1.00OpenAI | $0.0248Reka |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00OpenAI | $1.782AkashML |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 65% | 79% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 75.2% | 42.2% |
Auto-review circumvention (Internal)Safety-review circumvention — OpenAI's internal safety check on how often a model finds ways around its own automated review — the guardrail that inspects what it is about to do. This one counts failures, so lower is better and zero is the goal. | 0% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 61.7% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
QwenSWEBenchSoftware engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 57.1% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 33.4% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 30.8% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 30.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.2% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 71.4% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 84.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 20.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 42.9% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 36.2% | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 32% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 29 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-6.1 SolvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-6.1 SolvsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8-27BvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6.1 SolvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 SolvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6.1 SolvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3.8-27B are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, DeepSWE 1.1). Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-27B. Qwen3.8-27B shipped 46 days before GPT-6.1 Sol, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1.05M (GPT-6.1 Sol) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-27B). GPT-6.1 Sol is closed, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 79% vs GPT-6.1 Sol at 65%. On DeepSWE 1.1, GPT-6.1 Sol leads at 75.2% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 42.2%.