Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra

Two OpenAI tiers compared on the figures that decide which one a workload actually needs.

Catalog record checked August 12, 2026; individual provider fields may change.

OpenAI

GPT-5.6 Sol

Frontier

vs

OpenAI

GPT-5.6 Terra

Balanced

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 Terra
ProviderOpenAIOpenAI
TierFrontierBalanced
Context window1.05M1.05M
Max output128K128K
Input / 1M tokens$5Winner: $2
Output / 1M tokens$30Winner: $12
WeightsClosedClosed
ParametersNot disclosedNot disclosed
Reasoning levelsnone, low, medium, high, xhigh, maxnone, low, medium, high, xhigh, max
Modalitiestext, imagetext, image
ReleasedJuly 9, 2026July 9, 2026
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] (2026-08-08)Winner: 6157

Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Pricing tiers: GPT-5.6 Sol: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate. · GPT-5.6 Terra: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate.

Frontier

GPT-5.6 Sol

OpenAI's flagship tier, aimed at the hardest reasoning and agentic work.

Best for

  • Complex reasoning
  • Agentic workflows
  • Hard coding tasks

Watch out

25x Luna's input price — overspecified for routine generation. Sol Fast mode (where offered) is roughly ~2× price for ~2.5× speed — only enable when latency is the constraint. `gpt-5.2-chat-latest` / `gpt-5.3-chat-latest` shut down 2026-08-10 — migrate API chat traffic to Sol. ChatGPT Plus/Pro Chat got an Aug 6 Sol refresh + effort slider; Work/Codex/API July builds are unchanged.

Balanced

GPT-5.6 Terra

OpenAI's middle tier, balancing capability against cost.

Best for

  • Mixed workloads
  • Teams standardising on one model

Watch out

10x Luna's input price; check whether Luna already suffices for the workload.

Benchmark

DeepSWE 1.1 in context

Both models shown against the wider field, with cost per completed task alongside the score.

Local leader

Claude Opus 5 [max]

74%

Rows shown

24

Highest published reasoning effort per model (not best Pass@1)

Snapshot date

2026-08-13

Mirrored from deepswe.datacurve.ai

DeepSWE 1.1 pass@10%16%32%48%64%80%$0$4.50$9.00$13.50$18.00$22.50$27.00Avg cost per taskClaude Opus 5 [max]: 74% · $11.84 · 118k tokens · 99 stepsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.6 Sol [max]: 73% · $8.39 · 60k tokens · 61 stepsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Fable 5 [max]: 70% · $21.63 · 119k tokens · 88 stepsClaude Fable 5GPT-5.6 Terra [max]: 70% · $4.95 · 72k tokens · 76 stepsGPT-5.6 TerraKimi K3 [max]: 69% · $4.65 · 82k tokens · 98 stepsKimi K3GPT-5.6 Luna [max]: 67% · $3.03 · 73k tokens · 102 stepsGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5 [xhigh]: 67% · $7.23 · 46k tokens · 82 stepsGPT-5.5Grok 4.6 [xhigh]: 67% · $5.50 · 71k tokens · 87 stepsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.7 Flash [high]: 65% · $2.18 · 107k tokens · 125 stepsGemini 3.7 FlashDeepSeek V4-Pro [max]: 63% · $0.24 · 106k tokens · 155 stepsDeepSeek V4-ProClaude Opus 4.8 [max]: 59% · $13.22 · 135k tokens · 120 stepsClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh]: 58% · $3.73 · 95k tokens · 111 stepsQwen3.8-MaxMuse Spark 1.2 [xhigh]: 55% · $3.70 · 99k tokens · 101 stepsMuse Spark 1.2Claude Sonnet 5 [max]: 54% · $26.40 · 214k tokens · 268 stepsClaude Sonnet 5Grok 4.5 [high]: 54% · $2.42 · 36k tokens · 61 stepsGrok 4.5DeepSeek V4-Flash [max]: 53% · $0.10 · 108k tokens · 153 stepsDeepSeek V4-FlashMuse Spark 1.1 [xhigh]: 53% · $2.36 · 74k tokens · 96 stepsMuse Spark 1.1GPT-5.4 [xhigh]: 52% · $5.65 · 71k tokens · 70 stepsGPT-5.4Gemini 3.6 Flash [high]: 47% · $4.42 · 96k tokens · 117 stepsGemini 3.6 FlashGLM 5.2 [max]: 44% · $3.92 · 78k tokens · 129 stepsGLM 5.2Gemini 3.5 Flash [high]: 36% · $3.45 · 76k tokens · 105 stepsGemini 3.5 FlashKimi K2.7 Code: 31% · $2.82 · 59k tokens · 149 stepsKimi K2.7 CodeClaude Sonnet 4.6 [high]: 30% · $5.52 · 76k tokens · 134 stepsClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.1 Pro [high]: 12% · $2.14 · 28k tokens · 76 stepsGemini 3.1 Pro

Better is toward the top-right (higher pass rate, lower cost). X-axis is reversed to match DeepSWE’s public chart. v1.1 uses average cost / tokens / steps; v1 uses published medians.

DeepSWE 1.1 leaderboard with pass rate, cost, tokens, and steps per task
#ModelPass@1Cost / taskTokens / taskSteps / task
1Claude Opus 5 [max]74%$11.84118k99
2GPT-5.6 Sol [max]73%$8.3960k61
3Claude Fable 5 [max]70%$21.63119k88
4GPT-5.6 Terra [max]70%$4.9572k76
5Kimi K3 [max]69%$4.6582k98
6GPT-5.6 Luna [max]67%$3.0373k102
7GPT-5.5 [xhigh]67%$7.2346k82
8Grok 4.6 [xhigh]67%$5.5071k87
9Gemini 3.7 Flash [high]65%$2.18107k125
10DeepSeek V4-Pro [max]63%$0.24106k155
11Claude Opus 4.8 [max]59%$13.22135k120
12Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh]58%$3.7395k111
13Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh]55%$3.7099k101
14Claude Sonnet 5 [max]54%$26.40214k268
15Grok 4.5 [high]54%$2.4236k61
16DeepSeek V4-Flash [max]53%$0.10108k153
17Muse Spark 1.1 [xhigh]53%$2.3674k96
18GPT-5.4 [xhigh]52%$5.6571k70
19Gemini 3.6 Flash [high]47%$4.4296k117
20GLM 5.2 [max]44%$3.9278k129
21Gemini 3.5 Flash [high]36%$3.4576k105
22Kimi K2.7 Code31%$2.8259k149
23Claude Sonnet 4.6 [high]30%$5.5276k134
24Gemini 3.1 Pro [high]12%$2.1428k76

DeepSWE “Best” picks the highest published reasoning effort per model (not the highest pass rate). Small gaps may not be statistically meaningful — confirm on deepswe.datacurve.ai.

Common questions

GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Is GPT-5.6 Sol or GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper for input?

GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper at $2 per million input tokens, against $5 for GPT-5.6 Sol — roughly 2.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; GPT-5.6 Sol has tiered pricing: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate. GPT-5.6 Terra has tiered pricing: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate.

Is GPT-5.6 Sol or GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper for output?

GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper at $12 per million output tokens, against $30 for GPT-5.6 Sol — roughly 2.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; GPT-5.6 Sol has tiered pricing: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate. GPT-5.6 Terra has tiered pricing: Prompts above 272K tokens bill at 2× input and 1.5× output; cache writes are 1.25× the input rate.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Sol or GPT-5.6 Terra?

Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context, so document length will not decide between them.

Do GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.6 Terra support the same reasoning levels?

Yes — both accept the same effort settings: "none", "low", "medium", "high", "xhigh", "max". Higher effort costs more and takes longer, so start low and raise it only where output quality actually improves.

Should I use GPT-5.6 Sol or GPT-5.6 Terra?

GPT-5.6 Sol is the frontier tier and GPT-5.6 Terra the balanced tier. The useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper one — most production volume such as classification, extraction and summarisation does not.

Next step

Choosing between them

Tier and workload decide this more reliably than a leaderboard position does.

If both sit in the same tier, the decision usually comes down to context window and output price rather than headline capability — output tokens dominate real bills.

If one is a step up within the same provider, the useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper tier. Most production volume — classification, extraction, summarization — does not.

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Muse Code, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.