GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) by OpenAI or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 2.0 points higher (29.5 vs 27.5) but costs 6.5× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $350; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 27.5, and GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) when 27.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 27.5 | 29.5 | +7.3% Qwen3.7 Max is 7.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $350.36 | $2,277.12 | +549.9% Qwen3.7 Max is 6.5× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.92s | 16.53s | +179.2% Qwen3.7 Max is 179.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $12.0 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs GPT-5.6 Terra (Low): 7.3% more intelligence, 549.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 179.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
GPT-5.6 Terra (Low)Qwen3.7 MaxToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-terra-low/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-terra-low/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill