Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning) vs GPT-6.1 Sol (high)
Results updated 6 November 2026 · In Terminus-2 and Codex, so part of any gap can come from the harness · How we benchmark
Verdict
GPT-6.1 Sol (high) clearly beats Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning) by 20 points, and is cheaper and faster.
- Cost per task
- $0.068 vs $0.059
- Time per task
- 6.2 min vs 0.5 min
- Tokens per attempt
- 358k vs 109k
- Image input
- Yes vs Yes
GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex scores higher than Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 on all 3 evaluations scored for both. GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex is cheaper and faster: $0.059 against $0.068 per task, and 0.5 min against 6.2 min.
Where they differ most
By kind of work, share of tasks passed, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
| Kind of work | Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning) | GPT-6.1 Sol (high) |
|---|---|---|
| GIS analysis | 68 | 92 |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis | 67 | 84 |
| Climate and time series | 62 | 78 |
| Making maps | 70 | 81 |
Where the tasks are set: each kind of work links to its tasks and scoresCharts for each: Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 · GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex.
Side by side
| Metric | Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 | GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text only | 60 | 80 |
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text + vision | No data | 82 |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 62 | 72 |
| GeoBenchX score | 51 | 77 |
| GS-QA2 score | 69 | 93 |
| Vision agents score | No data | 86 |
| GeoAgentBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 65 | 100 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 58 | 100 |
| OGD4All score (standalone; in no index) | 93 | No data |
| GeoNatureAgent score (standalone; in no index) | 93 | No data |
| MultiGlobeQA score (standalone; in no index) | 72 | No data |
| GeoAgentEval score (standalone; in no index) | 84 | No data |
| ImpactMesh score (standalone; in no index) | No data | No data |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis score | 67 | 84 |
| Change detection score | 60 | 68 |
| GIS analysis score | 68 | 92 |
| Climate and time series score | 62 | 78 |
| Making maps score | 70 | 81 |
| Cost per task | $0.068 | $0.059 |
| Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) | 6.2 min | 0.5 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 358k | 109k |
| Turns per attempt | 16.0 | 6.6 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.25 | $2.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $1.49 | $10.00 |
| Context window | 262,144 | 1,050,000 |
| Image input | Yes | Yes |
| Developer | Alibaba (Qwen) | OpenAI |
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 or GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex?
GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex, 80 to 60.
Which is cheaper per task, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 or GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex?
GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex, $0.059 to $0.068.
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 or GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex?
GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex, 2k to 16k.
Which has the larger context window, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (Reasoning), Terminus-2 or GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex?
GPT-6.1 Sol (high), Codex, 1,050,000 tokens to 262,144 tokens.