GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 9b
Compare GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 9b live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 9b on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.7% to 38.1%.
Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 76.9% (#12 of 63) against 56.0% (#42 of 63) for Qwen3.5 9b.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0074 per sample), while GPT-6 Sol is faster (10.2s vs 41.4s per sample).
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 9b |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 262K |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 9B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.9% | 56.0% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0074 | $0.0021 |
| Avg speed / sample | 10.20s | 41.36s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.7% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.5 | 38.1% ±5.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 33.5 to 44.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.4% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 77.4 | – |
| Counting (low) | 76.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4 | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 77.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 | – |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | – |
| OCR (low) | 66.7% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 68.8% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.6% ±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.5 to 76.8 | 45.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 44.4 to 47.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 77.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 78.8 | – |
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 9b: Overview
GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.
The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.
Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.
The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 76.9% (#12 of 63) against 56.0% (#42 of 63) for Qwen3.5 9b. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Sol leads with 74.7% against 38.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 per sample against $0.0074. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.2s per inference against 41.4s. 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 captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.