Model comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Phi-4
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in 9 categories and Phi-4 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 93.7 to 20.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for GPT-6.1 Sol and 13.8% for Phi-4.
- Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
- Phi-4 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 65.6 | 31.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-29 | 2024-12-11 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.07 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.14 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.2 (#8), Phi-4: 34.4 (#239)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1487 | 1231 |
| DeepSWE | 75.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 50.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1755 | — |
| SciCode | 55.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45.5% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 30.7% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 55.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26), Phi-4: 22.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 60% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.8% |
| BALROG | — | 11.6% |
| GDP.pdf | 32% | — |
Reasoning GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2), Phi-4: 17.7 (#291)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 61% | 1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1466 | 1220 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 166.09 | 130.42 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 94.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 95.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 54.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 47.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 45.2% |
| LiveBench | — | 41.6% |
Math GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1), Phi-4: 20.8 (#285)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 13.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1464 | 1246 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 93.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 42% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 64.9% |
Knowledge GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4), Phi-4: 32.6 (#209)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.4% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1203 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.9% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 29.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 3.7% |
| MMLU | — | 84.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5), Phi-4: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 80% | — |
Multilingual GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46), Phi-4: 37.2 (#237)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1197 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1212 |
| LMArena Russian | 1455 | 1209 |
| LMArena French | — | 1224 |
| LMArena German | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1158 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1234 |
Instruction Following GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29), Phi-4: 60.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1468 | 1201 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.4% |
Long Context GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54), Phi-4: 36.9 (#226)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1217 |
Writing & Preference GPT-6.1 Sol leads
GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63), Phi-4: 40.5 (#244)
| Benchmark | GPT-6.1 Sol | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1447 | 1217 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1432 | 1182 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1206 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 62.6% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 25.6% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Phi-4?
GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Sol or Phi-4?
Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Phi-4 better for coding?
GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 63.2 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6.1 Sol and Phi-4 share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6.1 Sol has 34 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 has 37.