GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Plus
GPT-5.6 Sol leads Qwen3.7 Plus on coding, 73.5 to 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.7 Plus costs 15.6x less per output token ($1.28 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 75 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus: which to pick
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 73.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.2 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus for output tokens 15.6x cheaper ($1.28 vs $20.00 per million) and work measured by SkillsBench (Vals AI) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 75
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 64
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol scores 73.5 against 33.2.
6 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 47.0 against 25.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 50.2 against 17.5.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-5.6 Sol has a GPQA Diamond result, 95.2%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-5.6 Sol has a MMLU Pro result, 89.1%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 1321 against 1269.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus
GPT-5.6 Sol $0.014, Qwen3.7 Plus $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5.6 Sol has the number, $1.20.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.6 Sol 73.5 from 6 benchmarks, Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 22.3 points apart on average over 10 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- FrontierCode: GPT-5.6 Sol 47.5% against Qwen3.7 Plus 10.2%, 57.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.6 Sol $20.00 against Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 per million output tokens, 15.6x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5.6 Sol takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.7 Plus 1M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GPT-5.6 Sol | Bars | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 9 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 6 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 9 | 0 | ||
| Math | 4 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 3 | 2 | ||
| Web design | 8 | 0 | ||
| General | 23 | 7 | ||
| All shared boards | 64 | 11 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index91
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 89.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1616 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| AA Coding Index | 77.4 | 55.9 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 82.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 96.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 37.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 80.5% | 46.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 52.9% | 12.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 1.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 91.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 85.8% | 52.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI) | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 54.1% | 54.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 76.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 57.8% | 46.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 65.9% | 47.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | 10.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| GSO-Bench | 76.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| WeirdML | 88.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MirrorCode | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2176.9 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1496 | 1473 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1489 | 1473 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1620 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1618 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1609 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 10.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 47.0 | 25.2 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.8 | 147.0 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index61
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 50.2 | 17.5 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1245 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1248 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1239 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1260 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | 1267 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1286 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1241 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | 54.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 48.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 30.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 53.8% | 38.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 31.1% | 10.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 48.1% | 16.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 72.3% | 49.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 71.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | 41.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Time Horizon Index (Vals AI) | 23.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| CUA-bench (Vals AI) | 8.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 85.1% | 93.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | 2.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| BALROG | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $9,619 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Search | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench reasoning | 91.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 33.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 88.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 94.1% | 90.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 49.5% | 35.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 93.5% | 87.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| ARC-AGI | 97.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | 59.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 58.0% | 17.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| EBR-bench | 44.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1483 | 1460 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1517 | 1466 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1477 | 1460 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1305 | 1292 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1305 | 1295 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | 93.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 89.1% | 34.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 82.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | 83.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1473 | 1467 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1496 | 1470 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 89.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 87.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 64.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 74.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 67.3% | 66.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 44.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1455 | 1464 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1431 | 1464 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1476 | 1451 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1457 | 1435 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 52.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | 1269 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1336 | 1261 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1368 | 1262 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1322 | 1276 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1386 | 1239 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1341 | 1269 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1316 | 1208 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1304 | 1143 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LiveBench design | 81.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index237
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench data analysis | 79.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 66.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 52.6% | 39.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 85.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 72.6% | 53.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| IFBench | 72.7% | 78.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | 73.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| DTBench | 95.7% | 84.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMCA | 58.5% | 37.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Furniture assembly | 56.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1457 | 1454 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1483 | 1439 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1449 | 1438 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | 1278 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: English | 1457 | 1458 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1451 | 1445 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1525 | 1509 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | 1476 | 1471 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1472 | 1412 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1442 | 1413 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: French | 1472 | 1472 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1443 | 1457 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1471 | 1457 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1459 | 1449 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1461 | 1459 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1481 | 1454 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1462 | 1437 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1450 | 1422 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1280 | 1280 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1313 | 1332 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1290 | 1288 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1246 | 1261 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1283 | 1258 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | 1444 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 9, 2026 | June 3, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $4.00 | $0.32 |
| Output $/Mtok | $20.00 | $1.28 |
| Coding index | 73.5 | 33.2 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 6 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $1.20 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Qwen3.7 Plus for coding?
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 73.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.2 for Qwen3.7 Plus. Pick Qwen3.7 Plus for output tokens 15.6x cheaper ($1.28 vs $20.00 per million) and work measured by SkillsBench (Vals AI) or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?
GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 and $1.28. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.6 Sol only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?
GPT-5.6 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Plus comparison based on?
75 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.6 Sol's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.7 Plus's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.