GPT-5.1 Codex mini vs Qwen-MT Plus vs Step 1 (32K)
GPT-5.1 Codex mini comes out ahead, 59 to 18 and 12 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
OpenAIGPT-5.1 Codex mini
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $2.00
- Context400K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Plus
12/100- ECI—
- Price$2.46 / $7.37
- Context16K
StepFunStep 1 (32K)
18/100- ECI—
- Price$2.05 / $9.59
- Context33K
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is our pick
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGPT-5.1 Codex miniGPT-5.1 Codex mini $0.688 · Qwen-MT Plus $3.69 · Step 1 (32K) $3.94 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGPT-5.1 Codex miniGPT-5.1 Codex mini 400,000 · Step 1 (32K) 32,768 · Qwen-MT Plus 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsGPT-5.1 Codex miniGPT-5.1 Codex mini: Text, Images · Qwen-MT Plus: Text · Step 1 (32K): Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | GPT-5.1 Codex mini | Qwen-MT Plus | Step 1 (32K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 58 | 23 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 44 | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 59/100 | 12/100 | 18/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GPT-5.1 Codex miniOpenAI | Qwen-MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Step 1 (32K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 (best) | $2.46 | $2.05 |
| Output | $2.00 (best) | $7.37 | $9.59 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.41 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.688 (best) | $3.69 | $3.94 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 10 providers | Official Alibaba API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 400,000 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen-mt-plus | step-1-32k |
| API providers | 10 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Nov 13, 2025 | Jan 2025 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 30, 2024 | Apr 2024 | Jun 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GPT-5.1 Codex mini$6.50
- Qwen-MT Plus$39.34
- Step 1 (32K)$39.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GPT-5.1 Codex mini, Qwen-MT Plus or Step 1 (32K)?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 Codex mini, Qwen-MT Plus or Step 1 (32K)?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is cheaper at $0.25 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). Qwen-MT Plus costs $2.46 input / $7.37 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Step 1 (32K) costs $2.05 input / $9.59 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.688 per million tokens for GPT-5.1 Codex mini versus $3.69 for Qwen-MT Plus (5.4× as much) and $3.94 for Step 1 (32K) (5.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GPT-5.1 Codex mini has not been scored yet, Qwen-MT Plus has not been scored yet and Step 1 (32K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-5.1 Codex mini, Qwen-MT Plus and Step 1 (32K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Plus does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini has the largest context window at 400,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Step 1 (32K) and 16,384 for Qwen-MT Plus. Maximum output per response: GPT-5.1 Codex mini up to 128,000, Qwen-MT Plus up to 8,192, Step 1 (32K) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini accepts text and images; Qwen-MT Plus accepts text; Step 1 (32K) accepts text. GPT-5.1 Codex mini handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. GPT-5.1 Codex mini, Qwen-MT Plus and Step 1 (32K) are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is the newest, released Nov 13, 2025. Qwen-MT Plus came out Jan 2025; Step 1 (32K) came out Jan 1, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-5.1 Codex mini Sep 30, 2024, Qwen-MT Plus Apr 2024, Step 1 (32K) Jun 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
