Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.5-27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 50.5%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 70.8% (#28 of 61) for Qwen3.5-27B.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0043 vs $0.0061 per sample), while GPT-6.1 Sol is faster (14.3s vs 80.4s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolQwen3.5-27B

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.5-27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.1M262K
Parametersundisclosed27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.195
Output $/1M$10.00$1.56
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
70.8%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1670.8%FP868.2%AWQ-INT469.3%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0061$0.0043
Avg speed / sample14.31s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
–
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
–
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
–
OCR (low)
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
84.7%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 87.3
$0
OCR (high)
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
–
Data Extraction (low)
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
83.8%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 85.6
$0
Data Extraction (high)
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
–
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
–

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

Qwen3.5-27B

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 70.8% (#28 of 61) for Qwen3.5-27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% against 50.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0043 per sample against $0.0061. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6.1 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 14.3s per inference against 80.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.