Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3 Max
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.1 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Max costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 Max in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 81.5 to 37.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 86% for GPT-5.6 Terra and 18.9% for Qwen3 Max.
- Qwen3 Max is cheaper at $1.20 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
- GPT-5.6 Terra accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 59.1 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 33 |
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: 57.1 (#16), Qwen3 Max: 42.4 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,951 | 370.45 |
| DeepSWE | 69.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 41.3% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1520 | — |
| SciCode | 55% | — |
| WeirdML | 78.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra: 40.2 (#23), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,343 | 71.56 |
| APEX-Agents | 58.2% | — |
| BALROG | 53.2% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24.7% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 60.6 (#19), Qwen3 Max: 22.0 (#186)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 51.3% | 72.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 78.4% | 30.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 54% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1467 | 1448 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | 5% |
| DTBench | 93.3% | 82.1% |
| LMCA | 55% | 28.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 159.31 | 142.41 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 83.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 48.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.5% | — |
| CritPt | 30% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 83.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 81.5 (#10), Qwen3 Max: 37.6 (#94)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 86% | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.7% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 70.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 74% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 61.3 (#27), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.3% | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 43.2% | 48.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | 1457 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra: 47.5 (#10), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1271 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.8% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1472 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 54.5 (#42), Qwen3 Max: 53.9 (#58)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1514 | 1479 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1450 |
| LMArena German | 1462 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1446 | 1399 |
| LMArena Korean | 1420 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1455 | 1463 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 76.6 (#38), Qwen3 Max: 75.0 (#81)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1453 | 1420 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 44.4 (#64), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#129)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1452 | 1439 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 70.4 (#21), Qwen3 Max: 62.6 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1855 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1234 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Qwen3 Max?
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.1 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Max costs 1.9× 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 Max?
Qwen3 Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.20 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Terra lists at $2 and $12.
Is GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.1 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Terra does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3 Max share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Terra has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.