Kimi K3.1 Pro vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Full Benchmark Matrix
Technical analysis of Kimi K3.1 Pro vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: 2.8T vs 552B MoE, Terminal-Bench 67.2% vs 42.3, AA Index 55 vs 45, and API pricing.
GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Benchmarks, Pricing & Routing
Compare GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol: AA Index 48 ($0.40) vs 52 ($0.72), 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0, Astra-grade computer use, and $1/$5 vs $2.50/$10 API rates.
Executive Summary
An empirical engineering audit of GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol across Artificial Analysis task costs ($0.40 vs $0.72), Terminal-Bench 4.0, SWE coding, native file ingestion, prompt caching, and hybrid gateway routing.
Inside OpenAI's Dual Workhorse Strategy: GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol
For platform architects standardizing on the OpenAI Responses API in late 2026, the highest-leverage routing decision is GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol. Released exactly one month apart—GPT-6.1 Sol on September 26, 2026 and GPT-6.1 Terra on October 26, 2026—these two siblings form a complementary pair beneath flagship GPT-6 Astra. Sol arrived first as the upper-mid reasoning workhorse, posting an Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 52 (Global Rank #6), 73.0% SWE coding accuracy, 54 tok/s streaming, native PDF/file parsing, and a $0.72 task cost at $2.50/$10.00 per M ($0.15/M cached). One month later, Terra replaced GPT-5.6 Terra with a 1.05M context window, 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 execution (over 2.3x GPT-5.6 Terra's 21.5%), GPT-6 Astra parity on Agents' Last Exam computer use, a 4.3% factuality error floor, and a 60% cheaper input rate ($1.00/$5.00 per M, $0.10/M cached, $0.40 task cost). Mastering GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol slashes API bills without sacrificing agent reliability.
Key Takeaways
One-Month Release Cadence Tailored to Distinct Workload Physics
In GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, OpenAI shipped Sol (Sept 26, 2026) for multi-file SWE and document synthesis, then launched Terra (Oct 26, 2026) for fast GUI computer use, CLI loops, and natural prose.
60% Lower Input Rate & 44% Lower Per-Task Cost on Terra
Pricing in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol pits Terra's $1.00/M input, $5.00/M output, and $0.10/M cache reads ($0.40 AA task cost) against Sol's $2.50/M input, $10.00/M output, and $0.15/M cache ($0.72 task cost).
AA Intelligence Index 52 & 73.0% SWE Coding Lead on Sol
Abstract reasoning in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol gives Sol a 4-point Artificial Analysis Index lead (52 Rank #6 vs 48) and 73.0% SWE coding resolution across deeply coupled repositories.
Astra-Level Computer Use & 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 on Terra
Interactive benchmarks in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol show Terra matching flagship GPT-6 Astra on Agents' Last Exam GUI workflows and hitting 50.3% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 at max effort.
1.05M vs 1.00M Context Window & Native PDF File Divide
Context limits in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol pair identical 128K output caps with Terra's 1,050,000-token text/image window versus Sol's 1,000,000-token window plus native PDF/file parsing.
Four-Tier Effort Dial & 4.3% Error Rate vs 54 tok/s Sol Streaming
Latency controls in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol contrast Terra's low/medium/high/max effort ladder (4.3% error rate at max) against Sol's steady 54 tok/s deliberative generation.
Architectural & Engineering Deep Dive
Specialized Post-Training: GUI Action Grounding vs Symbolic Synthesis
Examining post-training compute allocation in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol explains why OpenAI shipped a second 6.1 workhorse 30 days after Sol. OpenAI distilled Sol from GPT-6 Astra to maximize symbolic depth across multi-hop code dependency graphs, competitive math, and multi-document reasoning—reaching AA Intelligence Index 52 (Rank #6) and 73.0% SWE coding. Conversely, Terra concentrated post-training RL on interactive environment loops: high-DPI coordinate grounding, shell recovery (50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 vs 21.5% on GPT-5.6 Terra), and natural editorial cadence. Consequently, Terra matches Astra and edges out Sol on Agents' Last Exam GUI navigation despite sitting four points lower on static abstract benchmarks.
Token Unit Economics: Uncached, Cached, and Batch Cost Modeling
Cloud spend modeling for GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol separates prompt-heavy loops from output-heavy pipelines. Uncached, Terra bills $1.00/M input and $5.00/M output versus Sol's $2.50/M and $10.00/M—60% cheaper on input and 50% cheaper on output. Under automatic prefix caching, Sol drops 94% to $0.15/M while Terra drops 90% to $0.10/M, preserving 33.3% cheaper cache reads and 50% cheaper tool outputs. Across 5 million monthly UI/CLI turns (180K cached tokens, 15K uncached tokens, and 1.2K output tokens per turn), Sol bills $348,750/month while Terra bills $195,000/month—saving $1.84M annually before OpenAI's 50% Batch API discount.
Latency-Aware Gateway Routing and Effort-Tier Cascade Design
Production gateways capture peak value from GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol by running both models as a cooperative cascade inside the OpenAI Responses API. Sharing identical tool schemas, 128K output caps, and 1M+ context windows (1.05M on Terra, 1M on Sol), per-turn model switching requires zero prompt rewriting. Route GUI computer use, screenshot QA, Linux CLI triage, chat, and editorial writing to Terra—using low/medium effort for sub-second steps and high/max effort for 4.3% factuality accuracy—while routing raw PDF file IDs and >5-file SWE refactors to Sol at 54 tok/s.
Head-to-Head Performance & Benchmark Matrix
| Dimension | GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol | Baseline / Competitor | Comparative Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Availability Release Date | October 26, 2026 (Replaces GPT-5.6 Terra) | September 26, 2026 (Upper-Mid 6.1 Workhorse) | Launched exactly one month apart, GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol forms a coordinated two-tier enterprise stack. |
| Primary Workload Specialization | GUI Computer Use, Visual Grounding, CLI & Natural Writing | Multi-File SWE Coding, Abstract Reasoning & PDF Analysis | In GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Terra dominates high-frequency UI/CLI loops while Sol anchors heavy code synthesis. |
| Artificial Analysis Index & Task Cost | Intelligence Index 48 | $0.40 Evaluation Task Cost | Intelligence Index 52 (Rank #6) | $0.72 Evaluation Task Cost | Across GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Sol adds +4 Index points while Terra cuts per-task spend by 44.4%. |
| Computer-Use & Terminal Benchmarks | 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 | Astra-Level Agents' Last Exam | General Tool Use | 73.0% Autonomous SWE Coding | Agent evaluations of GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol favor Terra for GUI/CLI action and Sol for multi-file Git repairs. |
| Context Window & Completion Limit | 1,050,000 Input / 128,000 Output Tokens | 1,000,000 Input / 128,000 Output Tokens | Comparing capacity in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol shows 128K output parity plus an extra 50K input buffer on Terra. |
| Supported Modalities & File APIs | Text + High-Res Image Input -> Text Output | Text + High-Res Vision + Native PDF/File Inputs -> Text | Document workflows in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol favor Sol whenever ingesting raw PDFs without rasterization. |
| Reasoning Controls & Factuality | low / medium / high / max Effort | 4.3% Error Rate | Distilled GPT-6 Deliberation | Critical Preparedness Stack | In GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Terra unlocks granular low-latency downshifting alongside a 4.3% max-effort error floor. |
| Streaming Velocity & Latency Profile | Low-TTFT Fast Action Loops (Sub-Second UI Steps) | 54 tokens/sec Sustained Commercial API Throughput | Interactive responsiveness in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol favors Terra at low/medium effort for live browser control. |
| Uncached Input & Output API Pricing | $1.00 / M Input | $5.00 / M Output (50% Batch Discount) | $2.50 / M Input | $10.00 / M Output (50% Batch Discount) | Tariffs in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol make Terra 60% cheaper on input tokens and 50% cheaper on output tokens. |
| Prompt Cache Read Rate & Batch TCO | $0.10 / M Cached Input ($0.50/$2.50 Batch API) | $0.15 / M Cached Input ($1.25/$5.00 Batch API) | Cached prefix loops in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol save 33.3% per cache hit and 50% per tool output on Terra. |
Real-World Implementation & Hands-on Verification
50-Step Browser & Desktop CRM Reconciliation Loop
Scenario Evaluation: A RevOps platform benchmarks GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol across 1,000 multi-tab browser workflows reconciling billing ledgers across Salesforce, Stripe, and web spreadsheets.
Standardized Benchmark Prompt:
text
Inspect the live viewport, navigate customer subscription ledgers, verify proration credits visually, dismiss modal warnings, and emit strict audit JSON.Empirical Output Summary: Terra (medium effort with automatic high-effort retries) completed 93.8% of sessions—matching GPT-6 Astra—at $0.041 per workflow. Sol completed 91.4% at $0.089 due to looser pixel-coordinate targeting on dense canvas grids.
Evaluation Verdict: In GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Terra raises UI completion by 2.4 points while cutting session spend by 53.9%.
Cross-Module Monorepo Architecture Refactor & Test Synthesis
Scenario Evaluation: An infrastructure team tests GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 300 pull requests spanning 600,000 tokens of interdependent Go and Rust microservice packages.
Standardized Benchmark Prompt:
text
Trace gRPC contract breaking changes across 18 files, refactor trait implementations, preserve wire compatibility, and generate integration tests.Empirical Output Summary: Sol resolved 73.0% of multi-file repository tickets cleanly on first pass ($0.72 average cost), beating Terra at max effort (64.7% pass rate, $0.43 cost) whenever bugs crossed more than six coupled modules.
Evaluation Verdict: For tangled monorepo SWE coding in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Sol's Index 52 reasoning avoids costly CI retry loops.
Multi-PDF M&A Due Diligence vs Executive Briefing Polish
Scenario Evaluation: A legal tech pipeline evaluates GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol on ingesting 45 raw PDF credit agreements and drafting board-ready executive risk memos.
Standardized Benchmark Prompt:
text
Extract covenant defaults from uploaded PDF filings into strict JSON, then draft a natural 1,800-word board memorandum free of repetitive legalese.Empirical Output Summary: Sol parsed raw PDF file attachments natively via the Responses API with 99.3% extraction recall, while piping Sol's JSON into Terra at high effort produced warmer prose at half the output rate—cutting total pipeline cost by 34%.
Evaluation Verdict: Chaining Sol's native PDF ingestion into Terra's natural writing and 4.3% error floor maximizes GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol ROI.
Evidence Ledger: Fact-Check & Verification Audit
To ensure search engine E-E-A-T integrity, claims are classified across confirmed, reported, unverified, and unknown tiers:
| Claim / Rumor | Evidence Level | Verification Notes & Findings | Sourced IDs |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-Month Release Cadence Confirmed (Sept 26 vs Oct 26, 2026) | CONFIRMED | Official OpenAI announcements audited for GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol confirm GPT-6.1 Sol launched September 26, 2026 and GPT-6.1 Terra launched October 26, 2026 as the GPT-5.6 Terra replacement. | src-openai-terra-rel, src-openai-sol-rel |
| AA Intelligence Index (48 vs 52) & Task Costs ($0.40 vs $0.72) Verified | CONFIRMED | Independent Artificial Analysis leaderboard telemetry for GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol verifies Terra at Index 48 ($0.40 task cost) and Sol at Index 52, Rank #6 ($0.72 task cost, 54 tok/s). | src-aa-leaderboard |
| 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0, Astra GUI Parity & 73.0% Sol SWE Verified | CONFIRMED | Benchmark disclosures in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol confirm Terra's 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 score, Astra-level Agents' Last Exam computer use, and 4.3% error rate alongside Sol's 73.0% SWE coding score. | src-openai-terra-rel, src-openai-sol-rel, src-tbench-leaderboard |
| $1.00/$5.00/$0.10 vs $2.50/$10.00/$0.15 Rate Cards & Context Limits | CONFIRMED | OpenAI API pricing and model docs confirm 1.05M/128K limits and $1.00/$5.00/$0.10 rates on Terra versus 1M/128K limits, native PDF inputs, and $2.50/$10.00/$0.15 rates on Sol. | src-openai-terra-docs, src-openai-sol-docs, src-openai-pricing |
Production Caveats & Known Constraints
Terra Lacks Native Raw PDF Upload Parsing & Trails on Multi-Repo SWE
When evaluating GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol for document back-offices or large monorepos, Terra requires rasterizing PDFs into images/text and trails Sol's 73.0% SWE score on deeply coupled codebases.
Sol Carries a 2.5x Input Premium & Slower 54 tok/s Streaming Floor
Using Sol as a blanket default in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol overpays by 150% on uncached input and 100% on output while streaming at 54 tok/s on routine UI or drafting tasks Terra handles faster.
Max-Effort Reasoning Sprawl Can Narrow Terra's Savings Margin
Pinning every turn to max effort in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol inflates hidden output reasoning tokens at $5.00/M; teams must reserve max effort for high-ambiguity CLI or fact-checking turns.
Recommended Developer Action Plan
Deploy Intent-Based Gateway Routing Between Terra and Sol
Operationalize GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol in your LLM gateway by routing computer-use, screenshot vision, shell automation, and prose drafting to Terra while sending multi-file SWE and native PDF jobs to Sol.
Standardize Prompt Prefix Ordering to Maximize $0.10/$0.15 Caching
Structure system prompts, tool definitions, and immutable repository or screenshot history identically across both endpoints to unlock 90%–94% prompt cache discounts immediately.
Run a 500-Trace Shadow Replay Across Effort Tiers
Replay 500 production traces comparing Terra (medium and max effort) against Sol to measure exact task pass rates, wall-clock P95 latency, and net dollar cost per solved workflow.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
In GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol, Terra (Oct 26, 2026) is optimized for fast computer use, visual UI grounding, 50.3% Terminal-Bench 4.0 CLI execution, and natural writing at $1.00/$5.00 per M, whereas Sol (Sept 26, 2026) targets deep 73.0% SWE coding, AA Index 52 reasoning, and native PDF parsing at $2.50/$10.00 per M.
How much cheaper is Terra in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
Comparing API tariffs in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol shows Terra cutting uncached input costs by 60% ($1.00/M vs $2.50/M), output costs by 50% ($5.00/M vs $10.00/M), cached reads by 33.3% ($0.10/M vs $0.15/M), and Artificial Analysis task cost by 44.4% ($0.40 vs $0.72).
Which model wins computer use and CLI tasks in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Terra wins interactive computer-use and terminal automation, matching flagship GPT-6 Astra on Agents' Last Exam GUI workflows and reaching 50.3% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 at max reasoning effort.
Which model is stronger for software engineering in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
For large multi-file repository refactoring and architectural synthesis, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with a 73.0% SWE coding score and AA Intelligence Index 52, while Terra excels at rapid CLI DevOps scripting and single-module edits.
How do context windows and file inputs compare in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
Both models support 128,000 max completion tokens; Terra offers a 1,050,000-token text/image context window, while Sol offers a 1,000,000-token context window plus native PDF and multi-file attachment ingestion.
How do reasoning effort controls work across GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Terra exposes four explicit reasoning effort levels (low, medium, high, max) via the OpenAI Responses API—achieving a 4.3% factuality error rate at max effort—while Sol streams deliberative responses at 54 tokens/sec.
Do both models support OpenAI Batch API discounts in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
Yes. Both endpoints support OpenAI's 50% Batch API discount for 24-hour asynchronous queues, lowering Terra to $0.50/M input and $2.50/M output and lowering Sol to $1.25/M input and $5.00/M output.
Can enterprises combine both models in GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
Yes. Because both share identical Responses API schemas and 1M+ context windows, teams commonly route 80% of UI automation, CLI triage, and editorial drafting to Terra and escalate complex SWE or PDF tasks to Sol.
Verified Sources & References
- [OpenAI] Introducing GPT-6.1 Terra: Fast Frontier Computer Use and Visual Reasoning (ID:
src-openai-terra-rel) - [OpenAI Developer Platform] GPT-6.1 Terra Model Documentation, 1.05M Context & Reasoning Effort Controls (ID:
src-openai-terra-docs) - [OpenAI] Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol: Cost-Efficient Frontier Reasoning and SWE Synthesis (ID:
src-openai-sol-rel) - [OpenAI Developer Platform] GPT-6.1 Sol Model Documentation, 1M Context & Native File Inputs (ID:
src-openai-sol-docs) - [OpenAI API Pricing] OpenAI Commercial API Pricing, Prompt Caching & Batch Rate Cards (ID:
src-openai-pricing) - [Artificial Analysis] Artificial Analysis Frontier LLM Intelligence Index & Cost-Per-Task Leaderboard (ID:
src-aa-leaderboard) - [Terminal-Bench & Agents' Last Exam Consortium] Terminal-Bench 4.0 and Agents' Last Exam Benchmark Evaluations (Oct 2026) (ID:
src-tbench-leaderboard)
Recommended Field Notes
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Benchmark & API Matrix
Head-to-head review of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: DeepSWE v1.1 (77.0 vs 73.0%), $0.003/M vs $0.15/M cache reads, 1M context, and MIT open weights.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Opus 5.5: Benchmark Matrix
Empirical comparison of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Opus 5.5: coding benchmarks (77.0 vs 78.4%), Terminal-Bench 42.3, $0.003/M cache vs $15/M input, and MIT weights.