Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Llama 3.1-8B
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 139× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.5 to 9.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for GPT-5.6 Sol and 1.7% for Llama 3.1-8B.
- Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.08 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 3.1-8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 64.4 | 22.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.08 |
| Results tracked | 64 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 61.1 (#7), Llama 3.1-8B: 19.9 (#335)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 57.1% | 13.2% |
| WeirdML | 89.4% | 1.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1493 | 1195 |
| DeepSWE | 72.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| MirrorCode | 20% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,177 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 62.8% |
| MBPP+ | — | 55.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.2 (#7), Llama 3.1-8B: 22.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 60% | 15.1% |
| APEX-Agents | 51.4% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 25.8% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 46.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | — |
| GBAEval | 52.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1257 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,619 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.7 (#6), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.5 (#316)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 32.3% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1175 |
| DTBench | 96% | 50.9% |
| LMCA | 59.2% | 5.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 161.99 | 116.48 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 71.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 93.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 37.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 44.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| PIQA | — | 81.2% |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.5 (#7), Llama 3.1-8B: 9.5 (#311)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 1.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1179 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 82.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 13.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 22.9% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 82.4% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#16), Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#302)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.5% | 27% |
| LMArena Expert | 1517 | 1144 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 40.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 24.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.8% |
| MMLU | — | 56.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.9 (#8), Llama 3.1-8B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.4 (#32), Llama 3.1-8B: 34.2 (#244)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1148 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1523 | 1151 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1176 |
| LMArena German | 1476 | 1144 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1475 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1053 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1158 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1449 | 1169 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.8 (#16), Llama 3.1-8B: 59.1 (#253)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1480 | 1159 |
| IFEval | — | 74.3% |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.3 (#42), Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#233)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1182 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.5 (#12), Llama 3.1-8B: 29.9 (#285)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1456 | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1450 | 1154 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1972 | 713 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1172 |
| WildBench | — | 68.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1250 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Llama 3.1-8B?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 139× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or Llama 3.1-8B?
Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Is GPT-5.6 Sol or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 61.1 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and Llama 3.1-8B share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 64 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.