Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 65.6% to 34.4%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 76.9% (#9 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.025 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 Flash

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.030
Output $/1M$30.00$0.130
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%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.025$0.0001
Avg speed / sample11.72s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
68.2%
$0.045
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
73.0%
$0.013
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
81.3%
$0.0070
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
90.7%
$0.032
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
82.5%
$0.0085
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
65.6%
$0.011
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
72.2%
$0.016
60.9%
$0.0005

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#9 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash. 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 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.025. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $30.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.