Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Models in this comparison

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

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 77.1% to 60.7%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#11 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

GPT-5.6 Terra is both cheaper ($0.0044 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.2s vs 18.0s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.8 Max

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.00$2.00
Output $/1M$6.00$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
72.4%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.0044$0.0074
Avg speed / sample7.15s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
60.7%
$0.0070
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
67.6%
$0.0030
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
78.1%
$0.0020
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
88.8%
$0.0065
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
79.4%
$0.0018
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
59.6%
$0.0025
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
64.2%
$0.0033
80.8%
$0.011

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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 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 72.4% (#11 of 24) for GPT-5.6 Terra. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 77.1% against 60.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0044 per sample against $0.0074. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.2s 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 image classification and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.