Roboflow

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

OpenAI

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 SolQwen3.7 Flash

GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGPT-6 SolQwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parametersundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.030
Output $/1M$0.130
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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 / sample8.15s6.28s
By task
Object Detection (low)
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
42.8%
$0.0001
Object Detection (high)
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
Counting (low)
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
46.0%
<$0.0001
Counting (high)
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0027
84.4%
<$0.0001
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
OCR (low)
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
84.1%
$0.0001
OCR (high)
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
Data Extraction (low)
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
77.3%
<$0.0001
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
Reasoning (low)
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069
61.6%
$0.0005

GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

GPT-6 Sol

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

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.