Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

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 SolQwen3.8 Max

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M984K
Parametersundisclosed2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$10.00
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%
83.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0061$0.0074
Avg speed / sample14.31s17.25s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
76.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1
$0.012
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
78.4%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9
$0.030
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
81.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0046
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
81.1%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1
$0.0091
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0027
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0037
OCR (low)
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
93.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.9
$0.0056
OCR (high)
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.7
$0.027
Data Extraction (low)
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
87.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6
$0.0029
Data Extraction (high)
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
89.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0040
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
75.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5
$0.0048
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
80.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1
$0.011

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 Max

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.