Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.5 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.69/100
Margin
1.5pts
winning →
65.2/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 Pro #38 (Estimated); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.6 Plus share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to GPT-5.5 Pro; 56 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
4
GPT-5.5 Pro only
3
Qwen3.6 Plus only
56
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.6 Plus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.2 versus 63.69. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 60.5 against 48.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 39.600% to 8.333%. GPT-5.5 Pro does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryGPT-5.5 ProΔQwen3.6 Plus
AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro90.1Margin 28.5Qwen3.6 Plus61.6
MathGPT-5.5 Pro48.1Margin 12.4Qwen3.6 Plus60.5
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 Pro57.2Margin 0.1Qwen3.6 Plus57.1
CodingGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus70.3
ReasoningGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus62.0
MultilingualGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus84.7
MultimodalGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus79.8
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus82.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.5 ProB · Qwen3.6 Plus
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 39.600%B 8.333%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 31.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.5 Pro scored 39.600%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.2%B 28.8%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 28.4
    HLE: GPT-5.5 Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 51.000%B 26.207%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 24.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.5 Pro scored 51.000%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.5 Pro$30 input / $180 outputQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.5 ProNot availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.5 ProNot availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.5 Pro1MQwen3.6 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
BrowseCompSource 90.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 61.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 58.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 57.2%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.7%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 44.3%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 41.5%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 39.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 48.2%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 74.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 74.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 97.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 31.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1135Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 50.60%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 56.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 73.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 87.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 25.56%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 54.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 40.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
CritPtSource 30.6%2.9%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
AI-NeedleSource 68.3%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source 62%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
HLESource 57.2%28.8%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.1%Not comparable
GPQASource 90.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 71.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 39.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.2%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 25.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 2.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 32.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 52.4%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 51.000%26.207%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 39.600%8.333%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
AIME26Source 95.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 96.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 94.6%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 87.8%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 83.8%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource 84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 57.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
MMMUSource 86.0%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 78.8%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 68.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource 81.5%Not comparable
V*Source 96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.0%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1249Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.6 PlusResult
IFEvalSource 94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 75.8%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 75.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 63.69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 39.600% and 8.333%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 57.1. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 48.1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.1 versus 61.6. Qwen3.6 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 22, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.