Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads on the public coding lane, 71.6 to 19.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.49 versus 42.48, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 8 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads on the public coding lane, 71.6 to 19.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads on the public agentic lane, 69.6 to 21.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
GPT-5.6 Sol leads the like-for-like coding row.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 83.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 80.9LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 41.4MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 10.4Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 21.7Supported · #85/105 | 69.6Supported · #7/105 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 9 public rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Coding | 19.8Supported · #117/135 | 71.6Supported · #6/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 12 public rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Knowledge | 34.5Estimated · #111/158 | 78.8Supported · #7/158 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 72.1#8/19 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 87.6#5/50 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 87.7#28/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 28.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 96.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingGPT-5.6 Sol
gpt-5.6-sol
OpenAI model catalogA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGPT-5.6 Sol
$0.4 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingClaude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.6 Sol
text, image
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.6 Sol
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
GPT-5.6 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
GPT-5.6 Sol
Reasoning
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
GPT-5.6 Sol
2026-07-09
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.49 versus 42.48, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
GPT-5.6 Sol leads the public coding lane, 71.6 to 19.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
GPT-5.6 Sol leads the public agentic tasks lane, 69.6 to 21.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5 and $0.014 on GPT-5.6 Sol; repository review costs $0.065 and $0.26; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.09 and $0.36. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 200K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
Bug Hunt Bench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 24, 2026