GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 83.7% to 75.9%.
Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 83.9% (#7 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Max.
GPT-6.1 Sol is both cheaper ($0.0061 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (14.3s vs 17.3s per sample).
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 984K |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 2.4T total, ~95B active |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| 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% | 83.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0061 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 14.31s | 17.25s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 | 76.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 | 78.4% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9 |
| Counting (low) | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 | 81.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 | 81.1% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 92.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5 | 93.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.9 |
| OCR (high) | 91.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 88.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 90.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7 | 89.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 | 75.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 | 80.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1 |
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview
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 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.
For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 83.9% (#7 of 61) for Qwen3.8 Max. 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 75.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0061 per sample against $0.0074. 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 17.3s. 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.