Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 27B

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Image Captioning, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 65.6% to 31.8%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 76.9% (#9 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.

Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.025 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5 27B

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5 27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.5M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.195
Output $/1M$30.00$1.56
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
76.9%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.025$0.0007
Avg speed / sample11.72s7.38s
By task
Object Detection
68.2%
$0.045
58.8%
$0.0013
Counting
73.0%
$0.013
54.0%
$0.0002
Identification
81.3%
$0.0070
78.1%
$0.0002
OCR
90.7%
$0.032
84.5%
$0.0009
Data Extraction
82.5%
$0.0085
78.3%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
65.6%
$0.011
31.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
72.2%
$0.016
61.6%
$0.0065

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview

GPT-5.6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.

GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.

Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#9 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-5.6 Sol leads with 65.6% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.025. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $30.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for OCR and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.