Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

81.96/100
Margin
14.7pts
← winning
67.22/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.7 Plus share 23 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Sol; 46 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
GPT-5.6 Sol only
23
Qwen3.7 Plus only
46
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 5 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 67.22. 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 knowledge, where it averages 94.6 against 60.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 91.9% to 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 scores and score margins for GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGPT-5.6 SolΔQwen3.7 Plus
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol94.6Margin← 34.5Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol92.0Margin← 20.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingGPT-5.6 Sol64.6Margin→ 11.0Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MathGPT-5.6 Sol87.5Margin→ 5.4Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultimodalGPT-5.6 Sol83.0Margin← 1.5Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
ReasoningGPT-5.6 SolNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualGPT-5.6 SolNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.6 SolNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.6 SolB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 91.9%B 70.3%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 21.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 91.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.6%B 57.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 7
    SWE-bench Pro: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 64.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.6%B 90.3%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 4.3
    GPQA: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 94.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 79%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 4
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.6 SolNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.6 SolNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.6 Sol1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 91.9%70.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
BrowseCompSource 92.2%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 62.6%2.8%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
CyberGymSource 84.5%—Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 33.7%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 58%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 54.0%20.8%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 85.1%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 61.8%21.8%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GDPval-AASource 1736936GPT-5.6 Sol leads
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 —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench ProSource 64.6%57.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 91.9%70.3%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%55.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-SciCodeSource 56.1%45.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
ARC-AGI-3Source 7.8%—Not comparable
GeneBench-ProSource 28.7%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 73.7%65.0%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
CritPtSource 32.3%9.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 94.6%90.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPQA-DSource 94.6%90.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
HealthBench ProfessionalSource 60.5%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 33.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 58.9%39.0%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 94.1%90.0%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-HLESource 47.2%33.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 21.7%2.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 58.5%22.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.8%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 89%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 89.000%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 83.000%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 83%79%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 84.6%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 83.4%80.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 72.7%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 91.9% and 70.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.6 versus 60.1. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 64.6. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 87.5. GPT-5.6 Sol stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 92 versus 71.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 81.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.