GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side.
Compare GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 72.2% to 34.4%.
Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 61.5% (#49 of 57) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 8.1s per sample).
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.030 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.130 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 80.7% | 61.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0065 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.15s | 6.28s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 73.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2 | 42.8% |
| Object Detection (high) | 75.2% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9 | – |
| Counting (low) | 74.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0 | 46.0% |
| Counting (high) | 76.1% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4 | – |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | – |
| OCR (low) | 91.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1 | 84.1% |
| OCR (high) | 91.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4 | 77.3% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2 | 34.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | 77.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8 | 61.6% |
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 61.5% (#49 of 57) for Qwen3.7 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-6 Sol leads with 72.2% against 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 8.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.