GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Plus 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 60.9% to 39.7%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 66.0% (#26 of 63) against 58.9% (#37 of 63) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.010 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 9.5s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.0% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.52s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 60.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7 | 60.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 61.3% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6 | – |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6 | 50.0% |
| Counting (high) | 62.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9 | – |
| Identification (low) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR (low) | 56.3% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 56.9% | 65.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 60.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6 | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 65.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2 | 68.2% |
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus: Overview
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Terra performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 66.0% (#26 of 63) against 58.9% (#37 of 63) for Qwen3.7 Plus. 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 60.9% against 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.010. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 9.5s. 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.