Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.6 Plus
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 60.7 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 86% for GPT-5.6 Terra and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
- GPT-5.6 Terra accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 59.2 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 57.7 (#19), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 55% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,951 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| DeepSWE | 69.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 41.3% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 78.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra: 40.1 (#25), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,343 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 58.2% | — |
| BALROG | 53.2% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24.7% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 60.7 (#21), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 78.4% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 30% | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 54% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1468 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | 12% |
| DTBench | 93.3% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 55% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 159.62 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 83.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 48.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 51.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 83.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 81.6 (#12), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 86% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.7% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1466 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 70.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 74% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 61.2 (#30), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.3% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 43.2% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | 1454 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra: 47.3 (#11), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1271 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.8% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1472 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 54.4 (#44), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1513 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1460 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1457 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1425 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1432 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 76.4 (#40), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1454 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 44.4 (#68), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1451 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 70.2 (#23), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1447 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1410 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1855 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1234 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Terra lists at $2 and $12.
Is GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Terra does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Terra has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.