Model comparison
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6 Sol scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.0 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 89.8% for GPT-6 Sol and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6 Sol.
- GPT-6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 61.8 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 60.1 (#11), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1688 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 57.6% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,462 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| DeepSWE | 68.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 49.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol: 37.2 (#36), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 14,428 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 54.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 26.4% | — |
Reasoning GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 74.0 (#9), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90.1% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 30.9% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1418 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 56% | 12% |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 59.1% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.72 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 95.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 53.3% | — |
Math GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 87.2 (#7), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.8% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1402 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90% | — |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 64.8 (#15), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.3% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 60.7% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1454 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol: 47.6 (#10), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 36.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 58.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPT-6 Sol: 50.5 (#118), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1385 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1405 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1410 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1390 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1385 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1341 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1401 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1384 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GPT-6 Sol: 74.5 (#94), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1412 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPT-6 Sol: 43.1 (#108), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1411 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 71.9 (#18), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1395 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1378 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6 Sol better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6 Sol 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-6 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.1 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6 Sol has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.