이 모델의 강점은 무엇인가요?

고급 코딩 능력 긴 400K 컨텍스트 이해 OpenAI의 최신 설계

이 모델의 약점은 무엇인가요?

오픈 소스가 아님 라이선스 제한 적용 대상 공개적으로 이용 가능한 정보 제한적

어떤 용도에 가장 적합한가요?

복잡한 코드 자동 생성 대규모 저장소 분석 고급 프로그램 수정

모델 목록으로

OpenAI독점

OpenAI GPT-5.1 Codex

Name: OpenAI GPT-5.1 Codex
Author: OpenAI

OpenAI GPT-5.1 Codex는 OpenAI에서 개발한 프로그래밍 특화 기초 모델입니다. 400K의 대규모 컨텍스트 윈도우가 특징입니다.

파라미터

Undisclosed

컨텍스트

400K

라이선스

Proprietary

출시일

2025-11-14

API 가격

이 모델의 API 가격 정보는 현재 공개되지 않았습니다

강점

・고급 코딩 능력
・긴 400K 컨텍스트 이해
・OpenAI의 최신 설계

약점

・오픈 소스가 아님
・라이선스 제한 적용 대상
・공개적으로 이용 가능한 정보 제한적

활용 사례

・복잡한 코드 자동 생성
・대규모 저장소 분석
・고급 프로그램 수정

심층 분석

Release Date

November 19, 2025

Context Window

400K tokens

Max Output

128K tokens

Input Price

$1.25 / 1M tokens

Output Price

$10.00 / 1M tokens

Cache Read

$0.125 / 1M tokens

SWE-bench Verified

73.7%

SWE-Lancer

66.3%

Terminal-Bench 2.0

52.8%

Knowledge Cutoff

September 2024

강점

・Strong coding benchmarks: SWE-bench Verified 73.7%, SWE-Lancer 66.3%, Terminal-Bench 52.8%
・Large 400K context window for processing entire codebases
・Supports tool calling, reasoning, structured output, and attachments
・Available across 20+ providers with competitive pricing
・Good agent score (100/100 on modelcompare.dev) and production-readiness (96/100)

약점

・Superseded by GPT-5.1-Codex-Max (SWE-bench 77.9%) and GPT-5.2-Codex
・No temperature control — limited fine-tuning of output randomness
・Proprietary/closed-source — only OpenAI and approved partners can serve it
・Higher cost than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini ($1.25/$10 vs $0.25/$2)
・Knowledge cutoff of September 2024 is older than newer models

경쟁사 비교

Model	Arena	SWE	GPQA	Price
Claude Sonnet 4.5	~1420	~72%	~89%	$3/$15 per 1M tokens
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max	~1410	77.9%	~88%	$1.25/$10 per 1M tokens
Gemini 3 Pro	~1420	76.2%	~90%	$3.50/$10.50 per 1M tokens
GPT-5-Codex	~1390	~70%	~85%	$1.25/$10 per 1M tokens

개요

GPT-5.1 Codex is OpenAI's coding-specialized model released November 19, 2025, achieving SWE-bench Verified 73.7% and Terminal-Bench 2.0 52.8% with a 400K context window. It replaced GPT-5-Codex as the default coding model before being itself superseded by GPT-5.1-Codex-Max just days later. At $1.25/$10 per 1M tokens, it remains available as a mid-tier coding option.

벤치마크 및 성능

GPT-5.1 Codex achieves SWE-bench Verified 73.7%, SWE-Lancer IC SWE 66.3%, and Terminal-Bench 2.0 52.8%. On modelcompare.dev, it scores 100/100 for agents, 96/100 for production-readiness, 94/100 for vision, and 92/100 for coding. Cost efficiency scenarios: RAG answer (1K) costs $11.25 ($0.01 each), code review (1K PRs) costs $20.00 ($0.02 each). The model supports tool calling, reasoning, and structured output but lacks temperature control.

상세 비교

GPT-5.1 Codex trails GPT-5.1-Codex-Max (77.9%) and Claude Opus 4.5 (80.9%) on SWE-bench but offers competitive pricing. It beats Gemini 3 Pro (76.2%) on SWE-bench at a lower price ($1.25/$10 vs $3.50/$10.50). Compared to GPT-5-Codex, it offers improved benchmarks at the same price. Claude Sonnet 4.5 ($3/$15) is more expensive with a similar SWE-bench score. The model is available across 20+ providers, with some offering discounts (OpenCode Zen at $1.07/$8.50).

커뮤니티 평가

GPT-5.1 Codex was well-received as a strong coding model but was quickly overshadowed by Codex-Max. Developers appreciate the 400K context window and agent capabilities. The lack of temperature control is a common complaint for creative coding tasks. It remains popular for mid-tier coding workloads where Codex-Max's additional cost isn't justified. The model is widely available across providers, making it accessible for diverse deployment scenarios.

활용 사례

Best for: code review and refactoring, software engineering tasks, structured code generation, agentic coding workflows, multi-file project analysis, and front-end/interactive development. The 400K context window is ideal for processing entire repositories. For simpler or higher-volume tasks, GPT-5.1 Codex Mini ($0.25/$2) is more cost-effective. For complex autonomous coding, GPT-5.1-Codex-Max offers better accuracy. For interactive pair programming, Claude Code may be preferred due to lower code churn.