Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
何時用哪一個
兩種模型涵蓋的範圍大致相同（聊天、視覺、程式碼、工具與推理，且脈絡視窗差異在四捨五入的誤差範圍內，gemini-3.7-flash 為 1048576，而 gpt-6.1-sol 為 1050000），因此真正的差異在於價格、媒體與輸出長度。針對大量的工作或任何具備音訊或影片輸入的情境請選擇 gemini-3.7-flash，因為它兩者皆接受，且在輸入（$0.75 對比 $2）與輸出（$3.75 對比 $10）的成本約便宜 2.7 倍。當您需要非常長的單一回應時請選擇 gpt-6.1-sol，因為它的 128000 最大輸出 token 幾乎是 65536 上限的兩倍。
Benchmark 成績
GPT-6.1 Sol:廠商沒有公布過 benchmark 成績。
廠商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.75 | $2 | 0.38× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $3.75 | $10 | 0.38× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.075 | $0.1 | 0.75× |
| 快取寫入 | - | 不額外計費 | - |
費率取自建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。
它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下，所有 76 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格（對數尺度）
能力
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 是 —— 廠商未公布調節參數 | 常駐開啟 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示快取 | 隱式 + 顯式 | 隱式（自動） |
| 快取生命週期 | 未公開 | 5-10m, up to 1h |
| 最小快取前綴 | 4096 個 token | 1024 個 token |
規格
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 影像 音訊 影片 | 文字 影像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-08-13 | 2026-09-29 |
| 知識截止日期 | 2026-03 | 2026-04 |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 1.1M |
| 最大輸出 | 66K | 128K |
| 思考參數 | - | reasoning.effort |
| 可接受的值 | - | reasoning.effort
|
| 預設值 | - | medium |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略，而非自行推測。 完整來源： Gemini 3.7 Flash · GPT-6.1 Sol
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a high volume of invisible "thinking tokens" behind the scenes to deliberate and solve complex logic before delivering a final response. Because our vendor bills strictly on token volume, this additional internal computation effectively doubled our billable output per query. In short, our costs increased because we are now paying for the extra compute capacity required to produce significantly higher-accuracy answers.
輸出 878 tok (+799 思考) 延遲 6.9 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model do more computational work before answering, and many providers bill the resulting reasoning tokens even though users never see them. That means the same number of requests can cost twice as much because each request consumes more billable tokens, even if the visible answers stay the same length. We should confirm the increase in our usage breakdown and reserve higher reasoning levels for tasks where the improvement justifies the added cost.
輸出 144 tok (+54 思考) 延遲 6.6 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可數）、受眾適配（面向 CFO 的語氣），以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 8/8 cases
Here is the corrected function: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function tracked equal adjacent transitions instead of the actual number of elements in a run, causing all non-empty run lengths to be undercounted by one (e.g., returning `0` instead of `1` for single-element lists because the loop never executes, and `1` instead of `2` for pairs). Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` (after handling empty inputs) and resetting `cur` to `1` on a mismatch ensures every individual element is counted as a valid run of at least length one.
輸出 1050 tok (+827 思考) 延遲 6.4 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original function counts equal adjacent pairs rather than items in a run: a run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal pairs, so a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index is also undercounted. It does process the last index, so the issue is not a missing final check. Initializing each nonempty run to `1` and updating `best` after every iteration correctly counts items, including singleton and trailing runs; empty inputs still return `0`.
輸出 189 tok 延遲 6.3 s
修復是否真的正確（可執行）、解釋的資訊密度，以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
輸出 918 tok (+858 思考) 延遲 6.2 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" }
輸出 345 tok (+285 思考) 延遲 10.2 s
schema 服從度（不臆造欄位）、幻覺壓力（guidance 明確被暫緩給出），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Why pay twice for identical AI queries simply because you routed them to different model vendors? Today, we introduce Universal Prompt Caching directly within our unified API gateway architecture. This capability stores repeated prompt contexts across OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models, instantly returning stored results to eliminate redundant computation fees. When your application sends an LLM request, the gateway inspects the payload, identifies semantic matches, and returns accurate cached responses in under ten milliseconds. Engineering teams can now slash inference latency by eighty percent while dramatically reducing monthly token expenditures across diverse production deployments. You retain complete privacy control, flexible cache eviction policies, and granular metrics through a single dashboard. Update your routing settings today to accelerate overall system performance.
輸出 2858 tok (+2718 思考) 延遲 14.1 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompts and manages caching across your supported AI providers. Why rebuild the same context every time your application switches models? With one configuration, teams can reuse shared instructions, standardize cache policies, and reduce repeated prompt processing wherever provider caching is available. The gateway handles provider-specific requirements while giving you clear visibility into cache hits, usage, and estimated savings. Set expiration windows, isolate cached content by project, and invalidate entries when prompts change. Your existing routing logic stays intact, so you can compare models without rebuilding your caching workflow. […]
輸出 588 tok (+435 思考) 延遲 13.9 s
約束服從度（字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句）、文風指紋，以及長度控制。
只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換
以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點，相同的金鑰，相同的請求結構。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="gemini-3.7-flash",
# model="gpt-6.1-sol", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "gemini-3.7-flash",
// model: "gpt-6.1-sol", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "gemini-3.7-flash",
# "model": "gpt-6.1-sol", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "gemini-3.7-flash",
// Model: "gpt-6.1-sol", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("gemini-3.7-flash")
// .model("gpt-6.1-sol") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 哪個比較便宜？
Gemini 3.7 Flash 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$0.75 對比 $2，相差 2.7×）。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊，實際成本取決於您的使用組合。
我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下，對 Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 進行 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務，並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串，因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 與 GPT-6.1 Sol 支援提示快取嗎？
是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率，因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。