Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 44 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Sol; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 44
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 58.01. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 87.5 against 6.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 83.000% to 0.000%.
GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.6 Sol gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GPT-5.6 Sol | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.6 Sol87.5 | Margin← 81.1 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.6 Sol92.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Coding | GPT-5.6 Sol64.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.6 Sol94.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.6 Sol83.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 83.000%B 0.000%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 83FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.000%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 0.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 89.000%B 8.481%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 80.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol1M | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | GPT-5.6 Sol lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 62.6% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 84.5% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 85.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 61.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1736 | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1501 | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 33.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 51.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 87.2% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 88% | — | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 67.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 77.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 60.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 33.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 21.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 58.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.8% | — | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 58.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 83.000% and 0.000%.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 versus 6.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.