GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare GPT-5.6 Terra 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 Terra vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 59.6% to 31.8%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#13 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.0044 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Terra is faster (7.2s vs 7.3s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.00 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $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 | 72.4% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0044 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.15s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 60.7% $0.0070 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 67.6% $0.0030 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0020 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 88.8% $0.0065 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 79.4% $0.0018 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 59.6% $0.0025 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 64.2% $0.0033 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
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 Terra performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 72.4% (#13 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 Terra leads with 59.6% 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 $0.0044. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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.
GPT-5.6 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.2s per inference against 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.