GPT-5.6 TerravsQwen3.7-Max
GPT-5.6 Terra | Qwen3.7-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 53% | 71%Best |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 5.4% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 26% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 30.4% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 60.6% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 64.9% | — |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 20.8% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 84.3% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.7% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 76.4% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 92.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Jun 26 2026 | May 20 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: GPT-5.6 Terra or Qwen3.7-Max?
Qwen3.7-Max leads GPT-5.6 Terra on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Qwen3.7-Max shipped 37 days before GPT-5.6 Terra, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 71% vs GPT-5.6 Terra at 53%.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.6 Terra was released by OpenAI on Jun 26 2026.
Qwen3.7-Max was released by Qwen on May 20 2026.
Other comparisons
GPT-5.6 TerravsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.6 TerravsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashGPT-5.6 TerravsMuse Spark 1.2Qwen3.7-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.2GPT-5.6 TerravsGrok 4.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsGrok 4.5GPT-5.6 TerravsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731GPT-5.6 TerravsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5