Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Classification, Open Prompt, Object Detection, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra 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 Terra
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

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

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 59.6% to 34.4%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#12 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0044 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 7.2s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.7 Flash

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.00$0.030
Output $/1M$6.00$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
72.4%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0044$0.0001
Avg speed / sample7.15s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
60.7%
$0.0070
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
67.6%
$0.0030
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
78.1%
$0.0020
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
88.8%
$0.0065
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
79.4%
$0.0018
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
59.6%
$0.0025
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
64.2%
$0.0033
60.9%
$0.0005

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Terra scores 84.3%, matching Claude Fable 5 on that benchmark. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.

GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.

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 Terra performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 72.4% (#12 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 Terra leads with 59.6% 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 $0.0044. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 7.2s. 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 image classification and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.