GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 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% (#10 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.025 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 11.7s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Sol | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.5M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $30.00 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| 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% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.025 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.72s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 68.2% $0.045 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 73.0% $0.013 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0070 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 90.7% $0.032 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 82.5% $0.0085 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 65.6% $0.011 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 72.2% $0.016 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
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.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
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% (#10 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 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.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.025. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $30.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.