Roboflow

GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 72.2% to 62.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 74.7% (#19 of 57) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0065 per sample), while GPT-6 Sol is faster (8.1s vs 18.0s per sample).

GPT-6 SolQwen3.8 27B

GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 SolQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M262K
Parametersundisclosed27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.420
Output $/1M$3.00
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%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0009
Avg speed / sample8.15s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0027
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 74.7% (#19 of 57) for Qwen3.8 27B. 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 62.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.1s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.