💻 Coding (SWE) WinnerGPT-6.1 Sol 86.4% SWE-bench · 96.8% HumanEval
🧠 STEM Reasoning WinnerGPT-6.1 Sol 92.4% GPQA · 98.8% MATH-500
Which model is better: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (442ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 265 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 92.4% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-6.1 Sol
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.07
$2.00
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 26.7x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.30
$10.00
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (97.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.015
$0.100
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 6.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.07
$2.00
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 26.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (33k out)
1,075k (128k out)
GPT-6.1 Sol (1.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
78ms
520ms
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (442ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
265 tok/s
135 tok/s
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (+130 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
55.4%
86.4%
GPT-6.1 Sol (+31.0% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
68.4%
92.4%
GPT-6.1 Sol (+24.0% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
80.1%
91%
GPT-6.1 Sol (+10.9% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
90.2%
98.8%
GPT-6.1 Sol (+8.6% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
81.5 / 100
62.9 / 100
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (+18.6 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) for delivers near-GPT-6 Astra frontier accuracy at one-fifth the token cost with a 95% cache read discount for high-efficiency agentic coding, computer use, and enterprise workflow automation — offering a 1,075k context window, 520ms TTFT, and $2.00/1M input pricing ($0.100/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.075/1M input tokens ($0.30/1M output) compared to $2.00/1M input ($10.00/1M output) for GPT-6.1 Sol.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers faster first-token latency at 78ms TTFT (265 tok/s throughput) compared to 520ms TTFT (135 tok/s) for GPT-6.1 Sol.
How do Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-6.1 Sol compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores 55.4% versus 86.4% for GPT-6.1 Sol. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores 68.4% versus 92.4% for GPT-6.1 Sol (and 90.2% vs 98.8% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Google) for high-frequency data pipelines, real-time routing, large-scale document tagging, and ultra-low-cost conversational assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 78ms TTFT, and $0.07/1M input pricing ($0.015/1M cached reads).
When should you choose GPT-6.1 Sol?
Choose GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) for delivers near-GPT-6 Astra frontier accuracy at one-fifth the token cost with a 95% cache read discount for high-efficiency agentic coding, computer use, and enterprise workflow automation — offering a 1,075k context window, 520ms TTFT, and $2.00/1M input pricing ($0.100/1M cached reads).
