GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
GPT-5.1 is an OpenAI frontier-grade model in the GPT-5 series, offering stronger general-purpose reasoning, clearer long-form responses, and improved instruction following. It introduces two variants—Instant and Thinking—that dynamically adjust computational depth. Instant focuses on fast, conversational replies, while Thinking provides deeper, more thorough reasoning for complex tasks. In ChatGPT, GPT-5.1 also powers an Auto mode that switches between these variants automatically based on task difficulty.
The model supports significantly expanded context windows: up to 16K/32K/128K tokens for Instant (depending on tier) and up to 196K tokens for Thinking on paid tiers. GPT-5.1 is also compatible with ChatGPT tools such as web search, file and image analysis, and multi-step workflows.
GPT-5.1 includes enhanced tone and style controls, allowing responses to be tailored using presets like Friendly, Professional, or Efficient, along with fine-grained adjustments for warmth, brevity, and emoji usage. Designed for broad applications in research assistance, coding, analysis, and conversational agents, GPT-5.1 serves as OpenAI’s primary full-capability successor to GPT-5 across ChatGPT and API integrations.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
GPT-5.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-5.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 196K | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.56 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 71.64% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.98s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology