Updated October 7, 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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 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 has the higher public coding point estimate, 69.5 to 60.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public agentic point estimate, 67.9 to 62.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 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
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 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 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
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 v5.8
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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 5.5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 62.1Supported · #18/122 | 67.9Supported · #10/122 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 9 public rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 60.9Supported · #20/146 | 69.5Supported · #9/146 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 13 public rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 79.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 72.8#15/28 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 88.6#4/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 77.8Supported · #9/174 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 8 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 87.7#27/125 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 96.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
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 5.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 5.5
claude-haiku-5-5
Anthropic Claude Haiku 5.5 model documentationGPT-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 5.5
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGPT-5.6 Sol
$0.4 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingClaude Haiku 5.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
text, image
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 5.5
GPT-5.6 Sol
Claude Haiku 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Haiku 5.5 model documentationGPT-5.6 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogClaude Haiku 5.5
Reasoning
GPT-5.6 Sol
Reasoning
Claude Haiku 5.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 5.5
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 5.5
2026-10-07
GPT-5.6 Sol
2026-07-09
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 69.5 to 60.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 67.9 to 62.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00035 on Claude Haiku 5.5 and $0.014 on GPT-5.6 Sol; repository review costs $0.0065 and $0.26; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.009 and $0.36. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
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
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
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
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
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
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 7, 2026
