GPT-5.6 Sol
The flagship top-tier model in the GPT-5.6 series. It achieves a score of 53.6 on the Agent Ultimate Exam and 80 on the Coding Agent Index. It supports an Ultra mode enabling four agents to run in parallel.
Core Facts
Devin officially announced that the newly integrated GPT-5.6 Sol model is now live on both the Devin Desktop and Devin CLI platforms
V4.1 Flash 1017's score on Terminal-Bench 4.0 rose from 31.2% to 42.3%, a relative improvement of 35% in five weeks.
The OpenRouter model pages show that across all traffic, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accounts for about 36% of tokens and GPT-6.1 Sol about 18%.
Timeline (last 90 days)
In automated benchmark tests, MiniMax M3.1 Flash scored 62%, Claude Opus 5 scored 50.3%, and GPT-5.6 Sol scored 45.8%.
On benchmarks for agentic coding, general agents, knowledge, automation and others, DeepSeek C.E Flash 1017 improves by several percentage points over the previous generation, beats open-source models such as GLM5.3 and Kimi K3, and performs almost on par with GPT-5.6 Sol.
The two vulnerabilities were discovered by the Wiz research team and were initially located through AI-assisted tools (Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-5.6 Sol).
In one test case, GPT-5.6 Sol cost 32.5 times Jev, and Opus 5 cost 184.9 times Jev.
In its tests, SerpApi used GPT-6.1 Sol (low reasoning effort) as the answer model, with scoring performed by GPT-5.6 Sol (high reasoning effort) without access to search tools.
V4.1 Flash 1017's score on Terminal-Bench 4.0 rose from 31.2% to 42.3%, a relative improvement of 35% in five weeks.
V4.1 Flash 1017 costs about $0.20 per task, while GPT-5.6 Sol costs about $3.20.
According to the creator's real-world tests and community feedback, DeepSeek-V4.1-flash has surpassed Claude Opus 5, GPT 5.6 Sol, and a range of domestic open-source models on core metrics measuring real-world programming capability.
Under the reference workload (1,100 tasks per month, each with 12K fresh input, 48K cached input, and 6K output tokens), enabling caching saves about $190 per month compared with not enabling it.
Artificial Analysis previously measured the V4-Flash series and found its per-task cost far lower than competitors (3 cents in its testing framework, versus $1.86 for GPT-5.6 Sol).
40 more timeline events
All Facts (20)
Devin officially announced that the newly integrated GPT-5.6 Sol model is now live on both the Devin Desktop and Devin CLI platforms
65%UnverifiedA developer characterized GPT-5.6 Sol as the most 'sleepy' model he had used and described its behavior as 'laziness'
80%UnverifiedExcessive model caution creates misalignment between internal safety logic and users' expectations for productivity, which is especially costly in paid API scenarios where users pay for waiting time
75%UnverifiedThe release party claimed that the cost of DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is only 1/40 that of Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol.
70%UnverifiedA developer reported that GPT-5.6 Sol spends approximately 70% of its runtime executing sleep commands
70%Partially VerifiedV4.1 Flash 1017's score on Terminal-Bench 4.0 rose from 31.2% to 42.3%, a relative improvement of 35% in five weeks.
65%Partially VerifiedThe OpenRouter model pages show that across all traffic, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accounts for about 36% of tokens and GPT-6.1 Sol about 18%.
65%UnverifiedIn Codex, a 1 million token context window can be unlocked for GPT-5.6 Sol by adding the model slug and manually setting the context window to 1 million and the auto-compact threshold to 900,000.
60%UnverifiedIn automated benchmark tests, MiniMax M3.1 Flash scored 62%, Claude Opus 5 scored 50.3%, and GPT-5.6 Sol scored 45.8%.
50%UnverifiedOn benchmarks for agentic coding, general agents, knowledge, automation and others, DeepSeek C.E Flash 1017 improves by several percentage points over the previous generation, beats open-source models such as GLM5.3 and Kimi K3, and performs almost on par with GPT-5.6 Sol.
50%UnverifiedThe two vulnerabilities were discovered by the Wiz research team and were initially located through AI-assisted tools (Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-5.6 Sol).
50%UnverifiedIn one test case, GPT-5.6 Sol cost 32.5 times Jev, and Opus 5 cost 184.9 times Jev.
50%UnverifiedIn its tests, SerpApi used GPT-6.1 Sol (low reasoning effort) as the answer model, with scoring performed by GPT-5.6 Sol (high reasoning effort) without access to search tools.
50%UnverifiedV4.1 Flash 1017 costs about $0.20 per task, while GPT-5.6 Sol costs about $3.20.
50%UnverifiedAccording to the creator's real-world tests and community feedback, DeepSeek-V4.1-flash has surpassed Claude Opus 5, GPT 5.6 Sol, and a range of domestic open-source models on core metrics measuring real-world programming capability.
50%UnverifiedUnder the reference workload (1,100 tasks per month, each with 12K fresh input, 48K cached input, and 6K output tokens), enabling caching saves about $190 per month compared with not enabling it.
50%UnverifiedArtificial Analysis previously measured the V4-Flash series and found its per-task cost far lower than competitors (3 cents in its testing framework, versus $1.86 for GPT-5.6 Sol).
50%UnverifiedThe DeepSeek comparison table shows that the new model beats Kimi K3 on 10 of 11 tests, beats GPT-5.6 Sol on 9, but trails Claude Opus 5 on 7.
50%UnverifiedMustafa Suleiman said MAI Base 2 is stronger than the model powering GPT-5.6 Sol and used only a quarter of the compute OpenAI used to train that model, with this comparison based on non-public information Microsoft obtained as an investor.
50%UnverifiedClaude's vocabulary distance from humans dropped from 0.064 in Opus 5 to 0.052 in Opus 5.5, while OpenAI rose from 0.101 in GPT-5.6 Sol to 0.109 in GPT-6 Astra.
50%