GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Ox Alpha: which should you choose in 2026?
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini (by OpenAI) and Ox Alpha (by Stealth) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Ox Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.6875 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Ox Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Choose GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Ox Alpha if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Ox Alpha |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score for code and web development | 1244 ±22 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Aug 25, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Ox Alpha |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | OpenAI | Stealth |
| API provider | OpenAI | Ox Alpha |
| Input context | 400,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Nov 13, 2025 | Aug 20, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Image, Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.25 | $0.00 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $2.00 | $0.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.6875 | $0.00 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 20, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini from OpenAI with Ox Alpha from Stealth? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini | Ox Alpha | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Ox Alpha FAQ
Which is better, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini or Ox Alpha?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Ox Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.6875 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis. Ox Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Ox Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.6875 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Which model supports more context?
Ox Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Can I switch between GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Ox Alpha?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini comparisons
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
Kimi K2.7 Code
Moonshot AI
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.7 Code is a coding-focused model in Moonshot AI's Kimi K2 family, built to complete end-to-end programming tasks reliably over long contexts.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
More Ox Alpha comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance
Seed 2.1 Turbo is a multimodal model from ByteDance Seed for coding and long-horizon agent workflows.
Seed-2.0-Code
ByteDance
Seed 2.0 Code is a model from ByteDance Seed optimized for agentic coding.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.