GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) by OpenAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 12.3 points higher (39.8 vs 27.5) but costs 1.0× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $350; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GPT-5.6 Terra (Low).
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Terra (Low) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 27.5 | 39.8 | +44.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 44.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $350.36 | $362.72 | +3.5% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 3.5% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.91s | 49.76s | +742.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 742.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $12.0 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs GPT-5.6 Terra (Low): 44.7% more intelligence, 3.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 742.0% 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.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
GPT-5.6 Terra (Low)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights 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/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-terra-low/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill