Updated November 6, 2026. Rank says GPT-6 Sol is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
GPT-6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.09 versus 66.5, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 10 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-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 65.2 to 57.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 60.8 to 57.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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-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.
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 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 53.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 18.2OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 12.6ARC-AGI-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 5.0AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 2.8Each 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 | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-6 Sol | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 60.8Supported · #24/131 | 57.6Supported · #35/131 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 8 public rows | Gemini 3.7 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 57.7Supported · #24/157 | 65.2Supported · #13/157 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | GPT-6 Sol leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 70.8Supported · #16/178 | 80.0Estimated · #9/178 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 79.9Unranked · 5 rankable rows | 71.7#12/25 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 85.7#13/59 | 86.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 71.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 93.8Unranked · 2 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 v5.8) 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
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
GPT-6 Sol
Gemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationGPT-6 Sol
gpt-6-sol
OpenAI GPT-6 Sol model documentationA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-6 Sol
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI GPT-6 Sol model documentationGemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationGPT-6 Sol
text, image
OpenAI GPT-6 Sol model documentationGemini 3.7 Flash
GPT-6 Sol
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Gemini App - Spark, Gemini Enterprise App, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Google Antigravity
Google DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash model cardGPT-6 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API, OpenAI Chat Completions API, ChatGPT Work, Codex
OpenAI GPT-6 Sol and Luna launchGemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
GPT-6 Sol
Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
GPT-6 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
GPT-6 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
GPT-6 Sol
2026-09-22
GPT-6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.09 versus 66.5, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
GPT-6 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 65.2 to 57.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 60.8 to 57.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash and $0.007 on GPT-6 Sol; repository review costs $0.04875 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0675 and $0.18. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
GPT-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 2.1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
Agents' Last Exam
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Not directly comparable
MRCR v2 64K-128K
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Tie
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-6 Sol leads this result
ARC-AGI-3
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter
Not directly comparable
ParseBench
Shared sourceGemini 3.7 Flash leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-6 Sol leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGPT-6 Sol leads this result
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated November 6, 2026
