Model comparison
GPT-5.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 29 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 #9 (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 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 29 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to GPT-5.5; 31 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 29
- GPT-5.5 only
- 28
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 31
- Comparable categories
- 6 / 8
Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 29 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 6 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 65.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 85 against 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 35.400% to 8.333%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in mathematics, 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 | GPT-5.5 | Δ | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | GPT-5.585.0 | Margin← 23.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.581.6 | Margin← 20.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Math | GPT-5.547.6 | Margin→ 12.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Coding | GPT-5.558.6 | Margin→ 11.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.570.4 | Margin→ 9.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.557.8 | Margin← 0.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Multilingual | GPT-5.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-5.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 35.400%B 8.333%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 27.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.5 scored 35.400%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 51.700%B 26.207%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 25.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.5 scored 51.700%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.2%B 28.8%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 23.4HLE: GPT-5.5 scored 52.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 82%B 61.6%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 20.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.5 scored 82%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 90.4%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 3.2GPQA: GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.5$5 input / $30 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.51M | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.5 wins31 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 82% | 61.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 81.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 75.3% | 48.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 55.6% | 39.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 93.9% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.9% | 27.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.5% | 31.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1490 | 1135 | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.93% | 50.60% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.0% | 18.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.0% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 13.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1154 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 42.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 46.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.3% | — | 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 |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.6% | 56.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 82.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 69.85% | 25.56% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.9% | 54.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | 40.7% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 43.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGPT-5.5 wins7 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 90.4% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.2% | 28.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 41.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 54.8% | 39.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.5% | 88.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.3% | 25.7% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 20.1% | 2.7% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 56.9% | 26.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 85.5% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 51.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 51.700% | 26.207% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 35.400% | 8.333% | GPT-5.5 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 |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 81.2% | 78.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | 83.2% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 79.9% | 78.0% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1282 | 1249 | GPT-5.5 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Which is better, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 65.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 35.400% and 8.333%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.8 versus 57.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 58.6. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 47.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 85 versus 62. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.6 versus 61.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 70.4. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.