Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 59.6% to 37.8%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#13 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0089 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Terra is faster (7.2s vs 8.2s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.8 Flash

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.150
Output $/1M$12.00$0.470
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%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0089$0.0004
Avg speed / sample7.15s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
60.7%
$0.014
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
67.6%
$0.0060
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
78.1%
$0.0039
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
88.8%
$0.013
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
79.4%
$0.0037
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
59.6%
$0.0050
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
64.2%
$0.0066
68.9%
$0.0011

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Terra performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#13 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 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 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0089. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 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 8.2s. 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.