ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

QwQ 32B vs Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs GPT-4.1 mini

GPT-4.1 mini comes out ahead, 62 to 50 and 43 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    43/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  2. Google

    Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview

    Released Apr 14, 2026

    50/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview
  3. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    62/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 mini
01 — Verdict

GPT-4.1 mini is our pick

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (50) and QwQ 32B (43). It leads on context window. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview wins on inputs & features. 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-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · QwQ 32B 131,072 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewQwQ 32B: Text · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview: Text, Images, Audio, Video · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewGPT-4.1 mini
Price50%563657
Inputs & features30%359070
Context window20%242461
Overall100%43/10050/10062/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

QwQ 32B vs Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs GPT-4.1 mini specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewGoogleGPT-4.1 miniOpenAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.6 (best)—135.0
ECI rank#109 of 148 (best)—#115 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3%—65.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics——6.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2% (best)—44.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions——12.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66$1.00$0.40 (best)
Output$1.00 (best)$5.00$1.60
Cached input——$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.745$2.00$0.70 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 1 providersOfficial OpenAI API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens1,047,576 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens65,536 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesYes
PDFsNoNoYes
AudioNoYesNo
VideoNoYesNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryProprietary
API model ID——gpt-4.1-mini
API providers1124 (best)
ReleasedMar 5, 2025Apr 14, 2026Apr 14, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Jan 2025Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • QwQ 32B$8.60
  • Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview$20.00
  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: QwQ 32B, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview or GPT-4.1 mini?

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (50) and QwQ 32B (43). It leads on context window. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview wins on inputs & features. 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, QwQ 32B, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview or GPT-4.1 mini?

GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). QwQ 32B costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview costs $1.00 input / $5.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.70 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 mini versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.1× as much) and $2.00 for Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (2.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. QwQ 32B has an ECI of 137.6, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview has not been scored yet and GPT-4.1 mini has an ECI of 135.0.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview and GPT-4.1 mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 mini has the largest context window at 1,047,576 tokens, against 131,072 for QwQ 32B and 131,072 for Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview up to 65,536, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

QwQ 32B accepts text; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview accepts text, images, audio and video; GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview and GPT-4.1 mini is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is the newest, released Apr 14, 2026. GPT-4.1 mini came out Apr 14, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview Jan 2025, GPT-4.1 mini Apr 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons