Reasoning
Like-for-like- Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
- 45.1
- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 92.5
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Provider changes are easy to miss. Radar watches releases, pricing, deprecations, and incidents at the source.Provider changes are easy to miss.
See RadarModel comparison
Updated August 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public score, 81.48 versus 60.55, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limited
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
| Category | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think | GPT-5.6 Sol | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 45.1 | 92.5 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | 92.0 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 64.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 94.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 87.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 83.0 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
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 Pro Deep Think has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think has no comparable published API token rate.
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 Pro Deep Think
Not sourced
Google Gemini 3 Deep Think launchGPT-5.6 Sol
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Not sourced
GPT-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.
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
No comparable hosted API rate
GPT-5.6 Sol
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Not sourced
GPT-5.6 Sol
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Not sourced
GPT-5.6 Sol
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Limited Access · Gemini app for Google AI Ultra, Gemini API early-access program
Google Gemini 3 Deep Think launchGPT-5.6 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Reasoning
GPT-5.6 Sol
Reasoning
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
2026-02-12
GPT-5.6 Sol
2026-07-09
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
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
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Not directly comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher public score, 81.48 versus 60.55, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Last updated August 10, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.