Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
何时用哪一个
两款模型涵盖了大致相同的领域（对话、视觉、代码、工具和推理，且上下文窗口的差异几乎可忽略不计，gemini-3.7-flash 为 1048576，gpt-6.1-sol 为 1050000），因此真正的区别在于价格、媒体输入和输出长度。对于高吞吐量工作或任何带有音频或视频输入的任务，请选择 gemini-3.7-flash，因为它同时接受这两种输入，并且输入（$0.75 对 $2）和输出（$3.75 对 $10）成本低约 2.7x。当您需要非常长的单次回复时请选择 gpt-6.1-sol，因为其 128000 个最大输出 Token 几乎是 65536 上限的两倍。
Benchmark 成绩
GPT-6.1 Sol:厂商没有公布过 benchmark 成绩。
厂商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定价
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.75 | $2 | 0.38× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $3.75 | $10 | 0.38× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.075 | $0.1 | 0.75× |
| 缓存写入 | - | 不单独收费 | - |
费率取自构建时的实时目录；每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 76 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格（对数刻度）
能力
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 是 —— 厂商未公布调节参数 | 始终开启 |
| 结构化输出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示词缓存 | 隐式 + 显式 | 隐式（自动） |
| 缓存生存时间 | 未公开 | 5-10m, up to 1h |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 4096 个 token | 1024 个 token |
规格
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 音频 视频 | 文本 图像 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-08-13 | 2026-09-29 |
| 知识截止日期 | 2026-03 | 2026-04 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 1.1M |
| 最大输出 | 66K | 128K |
| 思考参数 | - | reasoning.effort |
| 允许的值 | - | reasoning.effort
|
| 默认值 | - | medium |
规格转录自各供应商的文档；若供应商未发布某项数据，则直接省略该行，而非进行推断。 完整来源： Gemini 3.7 Flash · GPT-6.1 Sol
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 878 tok (+799 思考) 延迟 6.9 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 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.
输出 144 tok (+54 思考) 延迟 6.6 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可数）、受众适配（面向 CFO 的语气），以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 1050 tok (+827 思考) 延迟 6.4 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 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`.
输出 189 tok 延迟 6.3 s
修复是否真的正确（可运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
输出 918 tok (+858 思考) 延迟 6.2 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 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" }
输出 345 tok (+285 思考) 延迟 10.2 s
schema 服从度（不臆造字段）、幻觉压力（guidance 明确被暂缓给出），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 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.
输出 2858 tok (+2718 思考) 延迟 14.1 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通过 · 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. […]
输出 588 tok (+435 思考) 延迟 13.9 s
约束服从度（字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句）、文风指纹，以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点，相同的密钥，相同的请求结构。
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", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
"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", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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") // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，Gemini 3.7 Flash 更便宜（$0.75 对比 $2，相差 2.7×）。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息，实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下，对 Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 进行 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务，并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串，因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 支持提示词缓存吗？
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率，因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。