Early yesterday morning, OpenAI dirilis GPT‑5.1. I spent an entire day putting it through deep, hands‑on tests — and the results might not be what you expect.
If you want to experience GPT‑5.1 right now, GlobalGPT has already integrated this most powerful model.
The Bottom Line
Ya, GPT‑5.1 shows real progress compared to GPT‑5 from three months ago. But if you were hoping for a dominant, game‑changing leap, you might be disappointed. To put it bluntly: in many real‑world tasks, it still trails Claude Soneta 4.5.
This isn’t bashing — these are test results. I ran side‑by‑side evaluations across multiple scenarios: long‑form writing, literary composition, front‑end development, and more. Some outcomes were genuinely surprising.
What’s Changed in GPT‑5.1
OpenAI took a pragmatic approach with this update. When GPT‑5 launched three months ago, things went wrong — users reported worse performance than older versions, from math errors to shaky code. OpenAI blamed a “routing system” issue, where the AI wasn’t picking the right internal model for responses.
In GPT‑5.1, the changes focus on three main areas:
- Dual Modes.
Instant Mode for speed in casual chats; Thinking Mode for complex problems, dynamically adjusting reasoning time. Sounds promising — and in my tests, it’s indeed more flexible than GPT‑5. - Fewer Hallucinations.
Official stats say the hallucination rate dropped from 4.8% to 2.1%. In practice, it’s more willing to admit “I don’t know” instead of making things up. - Personalized Styles.
Eight selectable conversation styles, from formal to playful. This is genuinely useful — you can match the style to the scenario.
Test Results: Long‑Form Writing — Clear Loss
My first benchmark was to have both models produce a 10,000‑word study report, with the same open‑source project repo as source material.
Results:
- GPT‑5.1: ~31,000 characters
- Claude Sonnet 4.5: ~51,000 characters
Claude wrote nearly twice as much. This wasn’t a one‑off — across multiple trials, GPT‑5.1 tended to be more restrained. If you need long, detailed reports, Claude comes out ahead.
In a second test, I asked for a ~1,000‑word article introducing the project.
- GPT‑5.1: 1,600+ words, rich technical detail, but more suited to developers.
- Claude: 1,400+ words, closer to the requested length, easy for novices to understand.
Gemini 2.5 Pro judged GPT‑5.1’s as technical documentation and Claude’s as popular science. Both had merit, but Claude nailed word count and audience targeting.
Literary Composition: Noticeable Gap
This test genuinely surprised me. I had them write a Song‑dynasty “ci” poem in the Wanghaichao format, themed “Autumn fades to winter; a lament on the passing of time,” strictly following tonal rules.
- Claude Soneta 4.5: Done in 50 seconds, imagery classic (frost, wild geese, lotus ponds), emotion in place, tonal rules mostly correct, only one minor thematic slip.
- GPT‑5.1: Took longer, matched tone rules, but repeated imagery, misused “new bamboo shoots” (a spring image), and felt stiff.
In classical poetry — where imagery and elegance matter — GPT‑5.1 lagged behind Claude.
Front‑End Development: Mixed Wins
Tasks tested:
- SVG Animation: Cat and dog walking on grass, clouds and birds in the sky.
- GPT‑5.1’s animals too abstract to distinguish;
- Claude’s recognizably feline/canine, better birds.
- UI Design: A beehive management dashboard.
- Claude’s was refined in color/layout/typography;
- GPT‑5.1 went for heavy black tones, less appealing.
- Page Recreation from Screenshot:
- Both accurate;
- Claude’s colors matched better, GPT‑5.1’s background color slightly off.
- 3D Development (Three.js Rubik’s Cube game):
- Both failed. Claude showed a cube but “shuffle” button didn’t work; GPT‑5.1 didn’t render the cube at all.
Complex 3D apps are still beyond both.
Python Animation: Tie Game
Fun task: visualize bubble sort with 12 ducklings of varying sizes and one mother duck sorting them smallest to largest.
- Claude: Ducks too large/dense, obscuring detail, but logic correct.
- GPT‑5.1: Simpler ducks, less size distinction, logic also correct.
Knowledge Freshness: Claude Leads
Knowledge cutoff dates:
- GPT‑5.1: June 2024
- Claude Sonnet 4.5: January 2025
That’s a seven‑month difference — relevant for bleeding‑edge tech and current events.
Browser Automation: GPT‑5.1 Improvement
Tested in OpenAI’s Atlas browser: visit a blog, extract the first article, rewrite, and prepare for posting on X.
GPT‑5.1 completed in 1m05s — faster than GPT‑5 — and handled the flow smoothly, only stopping short of publishing (human review required). One of its clearest advantages over its predecessor.
Final Verdict: Progress, But Don’t Expect Too Much
Strengths:
- Real improvement over GPT‑5, especially in reduced hallucinations and browser automation.
- Practical personalization features.
- Likely stronger math/programming (per official claims).
Weaknesses:
- Long‑form writing still behind Claude.
- Literary work (poetry, prose) less elegant.
- UI design aesthetics weaker.
- Can’t manage complex 3D apps.
- Knowledge cutoff lags behind Claude.
Recommendations:
- Long reports → Claude
- Writing with style/imagery → Claude
- UI design → Claude first
- Math, programming, logic → Try GPT‑5.1
- Browser automation → GPT‑5.1 is good
- Casual chat/quick lookup → Either works
OpenAI played it safe — fixing bugs, smoothing experience — but didn’t pull away from competitors. In some areas, it’s still behind.
Competition in AI is now white‑hot; each model has strengths and weaknesses. The smart move is to choose per task, not blindly stick to one.
My advice: If you have Plus, subscribe to both ChatGPT and Claude. Switch as needed. For pros, trial both to find the best fit for your workflow.
Three months after GPT‑5’s stumble, 5.1 is steady — but not breathtaking.
Have you tried GPT‑5.1? Share your experiences in the comments.
Test Environment:
- Date: 14 Nov 2025
- GPT‑5.1: Thinking Mode
- Claude Sonnet 4.5: Thinking Mode
- Tasks: long‑form writing, literary composition, front‑end dev, Python animation, browser automation
