Compare/GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

GPT-4.1vsQwen3.6 Max Preview

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

OpenAI

GPT-4.1

Input
$2/M
Output
$8/M
Speed
142 tok/s
TTFT
0.87s
Alibaba

Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Input
$1.3/M
Output
$7.8/M
Speed
61 tok/s
TTFT
3.04s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Faster (tok/s)
GPT-4.1
Lower Latency
GPT-4.1
Benchmarks (0-1)
Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Pricing Comparison

MetricGPT-4.1Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Input ($/M tokens)$2$1.3
Output ($/M tokens)$8$7.8
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GPT-4.1$2.80
Qwen3.6 Max Preview$2.08

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GPT-4.1
142 tok/s
Qwen3.6 Max Preview
61 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GPT-4.1
0.87s
Qwen3.6 Max Preview
3.04s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.6 Max Preview takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.6 Max Preview is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.6 Max Preview makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GPT-4.1 is strongest on Intelligence Index (19.6). Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads on Intelligence Index (41.1).

Speed. On throughput, GPT-4.1 generates tokens at 142 tok/s versus 61 tok/s — about 57% faster. On time-to-first-token, GPT-4.1 responds in 870ms vs 3040ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. OpenAI and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: OpenAI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): GPT-4.1 costs $180.00 ($2160/year); Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs $156.00 ($1872/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-4.1 ≈ $26.00/run, Qwen3.6 Max Preview ≈ $22.10/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-4.1 ≈ $1200/run, Qwen3.6 Max Preview ≈ $1040/run. Qwen3.6 Max Preview becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • On throughput, GPT-4.1 is 2.31× faster (142 tok/s vs 61 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
19.641.1
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GPT-4.10 wins
1 winsQwen3.6 Max Preview

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $2.92/M tokens vs $3.50/M for GPT-4.1.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for GPT-4.1. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GPT-4.1 generates tokens faster at 142 tok/s vs 61 tok/s. GPT-4.1 also has lower time-to-first-token (0.87s vs 3.04s).

When should I use GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.6 Max Preview for lower cost, Qwen3.6 Max Preview for stronger benchmark performance, and GPT-4.1 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.