GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side.
Compare GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 Flash 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 35.1%.
Overall, GPT-6 Sol averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 68.8% (#29 of 57) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 8.1s per sample).
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.470 | |
| 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% | 68.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0065 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.15s | 6.48s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 73.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2 | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 75.2% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9 | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 74.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0 | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | 76.1% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 91.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1 | 88.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 88.9 |
| OCR (high) | 91.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.8 to 91.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.4% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4 | 84.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 86.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2 | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 77.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8 | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 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.
Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
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 68.8% (#29 of 57) for Qwen3.8 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 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s per inference against 8.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.