GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.6 Terra is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score, 72.58 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

GPT-5.6 Terra

OpenAI

72.58/100

Supported · Public rank #9

90% interval 68.5–76.7

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

55.78/100

Supported · Public rank #50

90% interval 45.6–65.9

Shared results: 6
GPT-5.6 Terra only: 26
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 46
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

Supported: GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

Which one for your work

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.

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra leads on the public agentic lane, 59.5 to 35.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
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
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
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
Repository review cost
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

Which one for a specific job

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.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

64.7GPT-5.6 Terra43.6Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

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.

OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 47.4
GPT-5.6 Terra:50.2%
Qwen3.7 Plus:2.8%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Qwen3.7 Plus source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 5.8
GPT-5.6 Terra:63.4%
Qwen3.7 Plus:57.6%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Qwen3.7 Plus source
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.6
GPT-5.6 Terra:92.9%
Qwen3.7 Plus:90.3%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Qwen3.7 Plus source
MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 1.7
GPT-5.6 Terra:80.7%
Qwen3.7 Plus:79%
GPT-5.6 Terra source Qwen3.7 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

GPT-5.6 Terra: 59.5; Supported · #18/105
Qwen3.7 Plus: 35.2; Supported · #55/105
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 11 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.6 Terra leads

Coding

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 64.7; Supported · #8/135
Qwen3.7 Plus: 43.6; Estimated · #49/135
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 77.2; #16/50
Qwen3.7 Plus: 72.4; #19/50
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 71.1; Supported · #9/158
Qwen3.7 Plus: 52.3; Estimated · #50/158
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

GPT-5.6 Terra: 85.7; #35/124
Qwen3.7 Plus: 89.2; #18/124
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: 65.4; #12/19
Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.1; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.9; #3/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

GPT-5.6 Terra: 96.8; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.2; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for GPT-5.6 Terra and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	GPT-5.6 Terra	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	59.5Supported · #18/105	35.2Supported · #55/105	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 11 public rows	GPT-5.6 Terra leads
Coding	64.7Supported · #8/135	43.6Estimated · #49/135	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	77.2#16/50	72.4#19/50	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Knowledge	71.1Supported · #9/158	52.3Estimated · #50/158	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Instruction following	85.7#35/124	89.2#18/124	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	65.4#12/19	75.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	78.9#3/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	96.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows	78.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) 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.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

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.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra: $0.008; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra: $0.136; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra: $0.2; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGPT-5.6 TerraQwen3.7 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.6 Terra

1.05M

OpenAI model catalog

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

GPT-5.6 Terra

gpt-5.6-terra

OpenAI model catalog

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.6 Terra

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

GPT-5.6 Terra

text, image

OpenAI model catalog

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-5.6 Terra

text

OpenAI model catalog

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-5.6 Terra

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.6 Terra

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.6 Terra

2026-07-09

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score, 72.58 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score, 72.58 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher for coding on the public lane, 64.7 to 43.6. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Terra leads the public agentic tasks lane, 59.5 to 35.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence78 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.6 Terra20.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
CyberGym
GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra77.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
ApprenticeBench
GPT-5.6 Terra16%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GPT-5.6 Terra87.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra85.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra95.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.6 Terra83.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
GPT-5.6 Terra0.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
GPT-5.6 Terra82%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MathVision
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
GPQA-D
GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
HLE-Verified
GPT-5.6 Terra51.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
GPT-5.6 Terra81.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.6 Terra57.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.6 Terra32.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra90.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Terra86.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HLE
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath (legacy)
GPT-5.6 Terra84.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GPT-5.6 Terra84.900%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GPT-5.6 Terra68.300%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
GPT-5.6 Terra—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

78 public results · 6 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 24, 2026

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Agentic work

Long documents

Coding work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Qwen3.7 Plus