Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 16 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Sol; 5 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 30
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 59.72. 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 18.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 83.000% to 4.167%.
GPT-5.6 Sol gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
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 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.6 Sol87.5 | Margin← 69.1 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.6 Sol92.0 | Margin← 26.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.6 Sol94.6 | Margin← 20.7 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Coding | GPT-5.6 Sol64.6 | Margin← 13.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.6 Sol83.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)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 4.167%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 78.8FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.000%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 4.167%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 89.000%B 23.103%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 65.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 91.9%B 65.4%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 26.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 91.9%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.6%B 57.3%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 7.3SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 64.6%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 57.3%. 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 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.6 Sol1M | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | GPT-5.6 Sol lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | 65.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| 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% | 95.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| 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 |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.6 Sol wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.6% | 57.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 91.9% | 65.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| 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% | 46.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | 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% | 40.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 88.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-HLESource | 47.2% | 28.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 21.7% | 10.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 58.5% | 37.7% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.8% | 44.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 73.9% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.7% | 76.6% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 83.000% and 4.167%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.6 versus 73.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.6 versus 51. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 92 versus 65.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.