🎁 New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.7 Plus

vs

Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table

Both take text and image input with toggleable reasoning and roughly matched context (1050000 tokens for gpt-5.6-sol versus 1000000 for qwen3.7-plus), so the real split is price and output ceiling: gpt-5.6-sol costs $5 input and $30 output per million, which is 12.5x and 18.75x the $0.4 and $1.6 of qwen3.7-plus. Pick gpt-5.6-sol when you need up to 128000 output tokens in one pass or its vision-tagged stack. Pick qwen3.7-plus for high-volume long-context work, video input, or cheap cache reads at $0.08 versus $0.5, accepting the 65536-token output cap.

Pricing

GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen3.7 Plus Δ
Input / 1M tokens $5 $0.4 13×
Output / 1M tokens $30 $1.6 19×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.08 6.3×
Cache write no separate charge 1.25x

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

GPT-5.6 Sol · $5 Qwen3.7 Plus · $0.4
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen3.7 Plus
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable configurable
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching implicit (automatic) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime 5–10m, up to 1h explicit: 5m, reset on hit
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen3.7 Plus
Input modalities text image text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-07-09 2026-06-01
Knowledge cutoff 2026-02
Context window 1.1M 1M
Max output 128K 66K
Thinking parameter reasoning.effort
  • enable_thinking
  • thinking_budget
  • preserve_thinking
Accepted values
reasoning.effort
  • none
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
enable_thinking
  • true
  • false
thinking_budget
  • in tokens
preserve_thinking
  • true
  • false
Default medium

on

the Qwen3.7 Plus series is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, and preserve_thinking is off

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GPT-5.6 Sol · Qwen3.7 Plus

One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model generate additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes more billable compute. Reasoning may also increase response length, latency, tool calls, and retries, further raising per-request cost. In short, usage volume may be unchanged, but the cost per task increased enough to double the bill.

out 111 tok (+34 thinking) latency 2.3 s

Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning requires the model to generate extensive internal "thinking" tokens to process complex logic before delivering a final answer. Because our vendor charges us per token consumed, this hidden computational overhead effectively doubles our output volume for the exact same number of user requests. Consequently, our costs have doubled because we are now paying for the model's increased processing time to achieve higher-quality, more accurate results.

out 1428 tok (+1345 thinking) latency 25.2 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original function counted equal *adjacencies* rather than items, so a run of length one produced `0` and every longer run was undercounted by one. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` for nonempty input makes them represent item counts, resetting `cur` to `1` starts a new run at the current item, and updating `best` on every iteration ensures a run reaching the final index is included.

out 316 tok (+135 thinking) latency 5.2 s

Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 8/8 cases

## Fixed Code ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ## Bug Explanation The function has two related bugs rooted in how it counts run lengths. First, `cur` is initialized to `0` and only incremented on matches, so it counts the number of *transitions* between equal elements rather than the total elements in the run—a run of N identical items only reaches `cur = N − 1`, undercounting by one. This also causes the single-element case to return `0`, since the loop never executes and `cur` never increments. […]

out 2317 tok (+2005 thinking) latency 40.5 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":"11+","guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 194 tok (+147 thinking) latency 3.2 s

Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

out 1807 tok (+1750 thinking) latency 31.6 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today, we’re introducing Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses prompt prefixes across supported AI providers, reducing latency, token costs, and duplicated processing. Teams can define cache policies once, route requests dynamically, and preserve provider flexibility without rewriting application logic. Switching models during testing or failover? The gateway identifies eligible prompt segments, applies provider-specific caching controls, and reports hits, misses, savings, and expiration details through unified logs and metrics. Configurable TTLs, tenant isolation, encryption, and cache-bypass options help teams balance performance, privacy, and freshness for every workload. Provider Prompt Cache is available today in beta through the dashboard and API, with SDK examples and migration guidance included. […]

out 733 tok (+564 thinking) latency 7.7 s

Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature designed to store and reuse prompts across multiple artificial intelligence providers. Have you ever noticed how repeatedly sending identical queries drains your budget and increases latency? PromptCache solves this by intelligently storing responses at the gateway level. When your application requests the same prompt from a different provider, the system instantly returns the cached result. This drastically reduces API costs and accelerates response times for your users. You can configure custom expiration times and set specific fallback rules for each vendor. You must stop paying twice for the exact same computation. Please upgrade your entire infrastructure today and experience much faster and cheaper integrations without changing a single line of your application code.

out 4453 tok (+4312 thinking) latency 76.8 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-5.6-sol",
    # model="qwen3.7-plus",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get an API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.4 vs $5, 13× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test GPT-5.6 Sol against Qwen3.7 Plus without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do GPT-5.6 Sol and Qwen3.7 Plus support prompt caching?

Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies