head-to-head
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Sol | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 96.2% | 80.6% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 54.2% |
| Terminal-Bench | 88.8% | — |
| Input $ / 1M | $5 | $2 |
| Output $ / 1M | $30 | $12 |
| Context | — | — |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Access | API · Codex (public since Jul 9 2026) | API · Gemini app · AI Studio |
| Maker | OpenAI | Google DeepMind |
what do the benchmarks actually say?
On SWE-bench Verified — real, human-validated GitHub issues resolved end-to-end — GPT-5.6 Sol posts 96.2% against 80.6% for Gemini 3.1 Pro, a 15.6-point gap. Verified is the closest public proxy for "can it fix a real bug in a real repo without help", which is why it anchors our ranking.
A few points either way is real but not decisive: within that band, the agent scaffolding around the model — how it retrieves files, runs tests, and retries — often matters as much as the base model. Treat the gap as a lean, not a verdict.
which is cheaper to run?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the cheaper model: $2 per 1M input tokens ($12 output) versus $5 ($30 output) for GPT-5.6 Sol — roughly 2.5× less on input. Coding workloads are output-heavy — agents write diffs, tests and retries — so weight the output rate more than the input rate when you estimate a monthly bill.
when to pick each
The strongest model on long tasks: 98% on the 1-to-4-hour tier, ahead of Claude Opus 5, and the second-highest overall score.
Google's strongest coding model today, with deep Workspace/Cloud integration. (A 3.5 Pro is expected but not shipped.)
how were these scores verified?
We only print a number once it's confirmed against a primary source or an independent evaluation, and each row on our leaderboard records which kind it is:
- GPT-5.6 Sol: Independent (vals.ai, Jul 14 2026, mini-swe-agent bash-only harness): SWE-bench Verified 96.20% ±0.86 — now the second-highest score on the board. Correction, Jul 25, 2026: this row read "the top score on the board" from Jul 17 until Jul 25, when vals.ai evaluated Claude Opus 5 at 97.00% ±0.76 and took the #1 slot. The 0.8-point gap is ~0.7 sigma and not significant, so the two are a statistical tie, and Sol still leads on the longest tasks (98% vs 90% on the 1-to-4-hour tier). Verified Jul 17, 2026; it had been unranked since Jun 26 because OpenAI published no SWE-bench number of its own, and it still has not. Read the #1 with care: the 1.2-point lead over Claude Fable 5 (95.00% ±0.98) is inside the combined margin of error (~0.9 sigma, not significant), so the two are a statistical tie and we rank Sol first only because it scored higher. Where it does separate is task length — 98% on 1-4 hour tasks vs 93% for Fable 5. OpenAI's own Terminal-Bench 2.1 claim is 88.8% (Sol) / 91.9% (Sol Ultra). No SWE-bench Pro score published. Pricing $5/$30 per 1M.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro: Vendor-reported (DeepMind) pass rate. No independent eval of this exact model; vals.ai has run Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (02/26) at 78.8%, a preview build we do not treat as the same model. Ties DeepSeek V4 Pro on Verified, trails it on Pro. Price: Google list $2/$12 per 1M for context up to 200K (doubles above 200K).
Full reviewsGPT-5.6 Sol, decoded
Ranked on our AI Coding Leaderboard, updated 2026-07-27. Scores are confirmed against primary sources; prices are per 1M input tokens and can change.
- OpenAIvals.ai — SWE-bench Verified (independent) — Independent (vals.ai, Jul 14 2026, mini-swe-agent bash-only harness): SWE-bench Verified 96.20% ±0.86 — now the second-highest score on the board. Correction, Jul 25, 2026: this row read "the top score on the board" from Jul 17 until Jul 25, when vals.ai evaluated Claude Opus 5 at 97.00% ±0.76 and took the #1 slot. The 0.8-point gap is ~0.7 sigma and not significant, so the two are a statistical tie, and Sol still leads on the longest tasks (98% vs 90% on the 1-to-4-hour tier). Verified Jul 17, 2026; it had been unranked since Jun 26 because OpenAI published no SWE-bench number of its own, and it still has not. Read the #1 with care: the 1.2-point lead over Claude Fable 5 (95.00% ±0.98) is inside the combined margin of error (~0.9 sigma, not significant), so the two are a statistical tie and we rank Sol first only because it scored higher. Where it does separate is task length — 98% on 1-4 hour tasks vs 93% for Fable 5. OpenAI's own Terminal-Bench 2.1 claim is 88.8% (Sol) / 91.9% (Sol Ultra). No SWE-bench Pro score published. Pricing $5/$30 per 1M.
- Google DeepMindGoogle DeepMind — Gemini Pro — Vendor-reported (DeepMind) pass rate. No independent eval of this exact model; vals.ai has run Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (02/26) at 78.8%, a preview build we do not treat as the same model. Ties DeepSeek V4 Pro on Verified, trails it on Pro. Price: Google list $2/$12 per 1M for context up to 200K (doubles above 200K).
- BenchmarkSWE-bench — the real-GitHub-issue benchmark