Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 83.7% to 62.0%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0061 per sample), while GPT-6.1 Sol is faster (14.3s vs 18.0s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8 27B

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M262K
Parametersundisclosed27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.025
Output $/1M$10.00$4.35
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%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0061$0.0009
Avg speed / sample14.31s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 83.7% against 62.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 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 18.0s. 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.