Compare / Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 78 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
GoogleGemini 4 Carbon
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 4 Carbon wins 922 too close to callGPT-6.1 Sol wins 47
Of the 78 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 11 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-11-7ba7a6de390d). See also Google vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.
Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol? The short answer
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 80 against 54) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 4 Carbon 54, GPT-6.1 Sol 80 (out of 100; how the score works).
- GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run: $0.008 against $0.021 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.5 times less).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is newer: released 10 Nov 2026, against 29 Sep 2026 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: GPT-6.1 Sol does better for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys and speed under pressure.
Head to head
54
Spring Prompt overall
80
$8.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,050,000
Every fact side by side
| Gemini 4 Carbon | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $4.00 (Amazon Bedrock) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.021 | $0.008 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | $0.10 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | – | 51.8 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 54 | 80 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 53 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Released | 10 Nov 2026 (newer) | 29 Sep 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
13 of 30
2 of 30
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
20 of 30
4 of 30
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
11 of 21
3 of 21
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
12 of 30
not measured
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
not measured
6 of 159
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
not measured
9 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
not measured
6 of 187
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
not measured
16 of 169
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
not measured
18 of 139
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
14 of 33
3 of 33
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- Gemini 4 Carbon review: slower than Argon on our business tests 11 Nov 2026
- Best AI for Product Descriptions: Accuracy, Cost and Real Examples 20 Oct 2026
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Claude Fable 5.2 review: first on our survey and ad budget tests, and one of the dearest models to run 10 Nov 2026
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Gemini 4 Carbon | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 7 · 9 of 18 measured | $0.0534 | $0.0767 |
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 27 · 31 of 39 measured | $0.0167low reasoning | $0.0210 |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 24 · 2 of 39 measured | 358low reasoning | 928Ultrafast (low reasoning) |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 21 · 15 of 31 measured | $0.0213 | $0.0084 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 11 · 1 of 30 measured | 53.6% | 75.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 15 · 2 of 30 measured | 14.3% | 67.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 22 · 21 of 31 measured | $0.16 | $0.15 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 20 · 4 of 31 measured | 1,021 | 1,415 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 18 · 1 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 100.0% |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 11 · 3 of 22 measured | 1,076 | 1,445 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 17 · 16 of 22 measured | $0.31 | $0.14 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 10 · 2 of 22 measured | 84.9 | 96.6 |
Show all 78 results (66 more)
| Measure | Gemini 4 Carbon | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 7 results | ||
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 16 · 1 of 18 measured | 62.5% | 0.0%Ultrafast |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 30 · 14 of 39 measured | 75.0%low reasoning | 25.0%Ultrafast (low reasoning) |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 18 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 39 measured | 0.0%low reasoning | 0.0% |
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 5 · 4 of 18 measured | 848low reasoning | 927Ultrafast |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 8 · 6 of 18 measured | 4.0 slow reasoning | 2.1 sUltrafast |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 36 · 19 of 39 measured | 3.2 slow reasoning | 1.4 sUltrafast (low reasoning) |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 29 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 14 · 3 of 31 measured | 97.3% | 98.6% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 6 · 2 of 31 measured | 98.4% | 98.8% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 12 · 3 of 31 measured | 97.0% | 98.7% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 27 · 1 of 31 measured | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 5 · 8 of 31 measured | 94.9% | 94.4% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 1 · 24 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 2.2% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 17 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 4.8% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 11 · 20 of 31 measured | 2.4% | 5.4% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 12 · 3 of 31 measured | 69.6% | 78.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 5 of 31 measured | 31.0% | 72.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 26 · 11 of 31 measured | 45.3 | 10.2 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 31 measured | 17.3% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.36 | 0.00 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 2 of 31 measured | 2.10 | 0.07 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 5 of 31 measured | 65.5% | 3.6% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 2 · 15 of 31 measured | 11.3% | 16.7% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 19 of 31 measured | 14.3% | 19.1% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 2 · 6 of 31 measured | 0.6% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 6 of 31 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 16 · 3 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 83.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 20 · 11 of 31 measured | 59.8% | 71.4% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 24 · 5 of 31 measured | 39.4% | 82.1% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 3 of 31 measured | 66.7% | 16.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 3 of 31 measured | 16.7% | 50.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 22 · 15 of 31 measured | 66.7% | 50.0% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 24 · 22 of 31 measured | 228 | 179 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 23 · 1 of 31 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 31 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 2 of 22 measured | 49.4% | 78.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 1 of 22 measured | 55.6% | 0.0% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 5 of 22 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 10 · 2 of 22 measured | 87.0 | 97.0 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 10 · 1 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 66.7% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 1 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 11 · 1 of 22 measured | 92.0 | 97.8 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 3 of 22 measured | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 19 · 15 of 22 measured | 390 | 222 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 11 · 4 of 22 measured | 92.8% | 95.7% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 5 of 22 measured | 44.4% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 1 of 22 measured | 77.8% | 0.0% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 5 of 22 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
Compare them with other models
- Google vs OpenAIEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Gemini 3.8 FlashJust above overall
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Muse Spark 1.3Cheapest with similar intelligence
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.2Highest-scoring overall available today
Quick answers
Is Gemini 4 Carbon better than GPT-6.1 Sol?
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 80 against 54) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run: $0.008 against $0.021 per product listing on CatalogBench (2.5 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol ranks 2 of 30 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 13 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol ranks 4 of 30 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 20 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol ranks 3 of 21 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 11 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol ranks 3 of 33 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 14 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol: 1,050,000 tokens, against 1,048,576 for Gemini 4 Carbon.
Run Gemini 4 Carbon and GPT-6.1 Sol on your own prompt.
Benchmarks aren't your task. Test both side by side on your prompt, with every answer checked against your rules and the cost of each one.