Model comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct

GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct costs 9.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI

65.0

Rank #7 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.6 to 38.8.
  • Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper at $0.50 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
  • GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct specifications
GPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index65.043.0
Released2026-07-092025-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$20$2
Results tracked6525

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: 65.1 (#7), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 42.5 (#98)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Coding14981440
DeepSWE72.7%—
FrontierCode47.5%—
CursorBench41.7%—
LMArena WebDev1618—
FrontierSWE32.2%—
SciCode57.1%—
GSO76.5%—
WeirdML89.4%—
MirrorCode20%—
ALE-Bench2,177—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
APEX-Agents51.4%—
OSWorld 2.027.3%—
τ²-bench Banking46.9%—
PostTrainBench36.2%—
BALROG60%—
GBAEval52.6%—
GDP.pdf30.7%—
LMArena Search1257—
Vending-Bench 29,619—

Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 31.1 (#81)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark67%66.7%
LMArena Hard Prompts14841428
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
SimpleBench71.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)93.8%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt32.3%—
Chess Puzzles64%—
EnigmaEval37.1%—
EBR-Bench44.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA59.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench93.1%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index161.66—

Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 38.8 (#126)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Math14741440
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)89.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 482.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench83%—
Omni-MATH—46.7%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 41.8 (#106)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.4%9.3%
LMArena Expert15161417
GPQA Diamond93.5%—
SimpleQA Verified69.7%—
MMLU-Pro—78.6%
GPQA (HELM)—63%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Vision1281—
Blueprint-Bench 233.6%—
Furniture Assembly56.7%—
LMArena Document1483—

Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 52.1 (#93)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Non-English14521407
LMArena Chinese15271460
LMArena French14771413
LMArena German14761417
LMArena Japanese14711395
LMArena Korean14421364
LMArena Russian14681404
LMArena Spanish14411435

Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 70.8 (#159)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14821389
IFEval—81%

Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 37.0 (#223)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14801403
Fiction.LiveBench—55.6%

Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads

GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 58.0 (#121)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
LMArena Text14571417
LMArena Creative Writing14481334
LMArena Multi-Turn14601416
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1972—
WildBench—80.7%
EQ-Bench 41250—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?

GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct costs 9.1× 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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?

Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.

Is GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct better for coding?

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 42.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has 25.

Related comparisons

Go deeper