Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 82.4% to 73.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 76.9% (#8 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper ($0.0074 vs $0.025 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Sol is faster (11.7s vs 18.0s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8 Max

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.5M984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$2.00
Output $/1M$30.00$6.00
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.025$0.0074
Avg speed / sample11.72s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
68.2%
$0.045
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
73.0%
$0.013
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
81.3%
$0.0070
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
90.7%
$0.032
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
82.5%
$0.0085
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
65.6%
$0.011
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
72.2%
$0.016
80.8%
$0.011

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 76.9% (#8 of 24) for GPT-5.6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 82.4% against 73.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0074 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 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 18.0s. 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.