Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Flash
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.6 to 39.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 89.1% for GPT-5.6 Sol and 22.5% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 65.0 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 2,177 | 326.4 |
| DeepSWE | 72.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | — |
| SciCode | 57.1% | — |
| GSO | 76.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 89.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | — |
| MirrorCode | 20% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 51.4% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 46.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | — |
| BALROG | 60% | — |
| 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: 74.8 (#8), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 71.7% | 35.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 18% |
| DTBench | 96% | 77.1% |
| LMCA | 59.2% | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 161.66 | 143.26 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 93.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 32.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 37.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 44.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.1% | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 82.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1474 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.5% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | 15.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | — |
| LMArena French | 1477 | — |
| LMArena German | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1471 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1442 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1441 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1482 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1457 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1448 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1972 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1250 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 19× 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 Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.