GPT-5.6 Terra

Made by OpenAI, released 9 Jul 2026. Epoch AI lists its access as “API access”. Appears strongest at maths among the models listed here.

Find my AI Compare with another model

In short

What it does well

  • Maths: Top tier (9th of 43 listed models)
  • Coding: Strong (39th of 77 listed models)

Where it falls short

  • Writing: Behind the leaders (61st of 77 listed models)
  • Knowledge: Middle (30th of 43 listed models)

What we don't know yet

  • Web-building votes: Not enough data
  • Fixing real software bugs: Not enough data

The four ratings

  • Top tier
  • Strong
  • Middle
  • Behind the leaders
  • Not enough data

Ratings compare only the 77 models listed here, in quarters, best first. “Not enough data” means no result yet. It is never a low score.

Writing
Behind the leadersHow often people preferred its answers to writing prompts. 1,413 on Arena's scale · Source for GPT-5.6 Terra writing score (lmarena)
Coding
StrongHow often people preferred its answers to coding questions. 1,485 on Arena's scale · Source for GPT-5.6 Terra coding score (lmarena)
Maths
Top tierHow many very hard maths problems it solved. 86.0% · Source for GPT-5.6 Terra maths score (epoch)
Knowledge
MiddleHow many short factual questions it answered correctly. 43.2% · Source for GPT-5.6 Terra knowledge score (epoch)

Evidence completeness: Broad evidence, 11 of 13 tests have a result.

Where it is relatively stronger or weaker

This compares each kind of request with the model's own overall position among the 77 listed models, using Arena's votes. It is about performance on different languages, kinds of request and topics, not about political or social bias.

Relatively stronger

Relatively weaker

Show every category we can see
Position in each Arena category
CategoryPositionArena scoreVotesSource
Expert-level prompts
Kind of request
28th of 771,495
95% range 1,487 to 1,504
5,537Source for Expert-level prompts
Hard prompts
Kind of request
40th of 771,469
95% range 1,464 to 1,474
31,313Source for Hard prompts
Long prompts
Kind of request
48th of 771,453
95% range 1,447 to 1,458
22,238Source for Long prompts
Longer conversations
Kind of request
44th of 771,455
95% range 1,447 to 1,462
7,713Source for Longer conversations
Chinese
Language
30th of 761,514
95% range 1,503 to 1,524
3,821Source for Chinese
English prompts
Language
61st of 771,449
95% range 1,443 to 1,454
19,456Source for English prompts
French
Language
44th of 721,468
95% range 1,452 to 1,484
1,576Source for French
German
Language
28th of 551,460
95% range 1,439 to 1,482
777Source for German
Japanese
Language
26th of 541,445
95% range 1,422 to 1,468
810Source for Japanese
Korean
Language
27th of 541,426
95% range 1,405 to 1,447
903Source for Korean
Non-English prompts
Language
41st of 771,441
95% range 1,436 to 1,446
28,700Source for Non-English prompts
Russian
Language
42nd of 771,453
95% range 1,445 to 1,462
5,582Source for Russian
Spanish
Language
45th of 701,448
95% range 1,433 to 1,464
1,488Source for Spanish
Entertainment, sport and media
Topic
53rd of 771,419
95% range 1,412 to 1,426
12,344Source for Entertainment, sport and media
Law and government
Topic
42nd of 761,461
95% range 1,451 to 1,471
4,041Source for Law and government
Medicine and health
Topic
61st of 751,432
95% range 1,421 to 1,443
3,432Source for Medicine and health
Science
Topic
58th of 771,453
95% range 1,446 to 1,461
7,835Source for Science
Software and IT
Topic
40th of 771,482
95% range 1,476 to 1,487
18,481Source for Software and IT

Bias: what we can and can't see

Our sources do not measure political lean, stereotyping, flattery (agreeing with you too readily) or safety behaviour, so we cannot say how any model does on those. What we can show is above: where a model is relatively stronger or weaker across languages, kinds of request and topics. Also, people voting in Arena can favour answer style, such as length and formatting, and our numbers do not adjust for that. See what AI bias means and what these tests can tell you.

Best-supported use cases

This model is not among the options we recommend for any of the five tasks. That reflects the rules and the models listed, not a verdict on the model.

Where an alternative might be more suitable

What it is

Maker
OpenAI
Release date (Epoch AI)
9 Jul 2026
Access, as listed by Epoch AI
API access
Licence, as listed by Arena
Proprietary
Maker's country (Epoch AI)
United States of America
Last observation in our data
28 Oct 2026
Data last changed
29 Oct 2026, 14:36 UTC

We have not verified an official product page for this model, so we do not link to one.

How you can use it

Proprietary. The model's files are not published, so it is generally available only through its maker or partners the maker chooses.

How you can reach it (an app, a website, a developer API or a third-party tool) and what that costs are not covered by our benchmark data. Where we could verify prices from the maker's own pages, they are shown under Price. Epoch AI lists access as “API access”. See models, apps and harnesses and how AI pricing works.

Price

Verified consumer plans that include this model

  • ChatGPT Plus: GBP 20.00 per month. Maker's page, checked 29 Oct 2026. Comparison table cell for this model on this plan: "Yes". The page says limits apply.
  • ChatGPT Pro (from): GBP 89.00 per month. Maker's page, checked 29 Oct 2026. Comparison table cell for this model on this plan: "Unlimited*". Listed as 'From £89 / month' with a choice of 3 usage tiers.

Prices change and can differ by country. Check the maker's page before you pay.

See ChatGPT plans and pricing (checked 29 Oct 2026). Page opened and read in the browser. Which plan includes which model comes from its comparison table.

We never infer subscription prices from API prices. New to “tokens” and “per million”? See how AI pricing works.

Good to remember

  • Benchmarks are samples of tasks. None proves performance in every situation.
  • Arena scores come from people choosing between answers. That measures preference, not correctness.
  • Ratings are relative to the 77 models listed here. A different set would change them.
  • Sources test models at different settings. Each result shows the setting used, and we do not adjust it.

The evidence, for the curious

Show all 13 tests with settings and sources
All published results for GPT-5.6 Terra. Ratings compare only the 77 models on this site.
TestResultRatingSetting usedSource identifierObservedLinks
Arena text: overall preference
Arena 'text' leaderboard (Bradley-Terry rating, no style control)
1,448
Arena score
95% range 1,444 to 1,452, 48,166 votes
Middle effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: overall preference score (lmarena)
Arena text: creative writing
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category creative_writing
1,413
Arena score
95% range 1,406 to 1,420, 10,250 votes
Behind the leaders effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: creative writing score (lmarena)
Arena text: coding
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category coding
1,485
Arena score
95% range 1,479 to 1,492, 12,713 votes
Strong effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: coding score (lmarena)
Arena text: maths
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category math
1,464
Arena score
95% range 1,451 to 1,476, 2,205 votes
Middle effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: maths score (lmarena)
Arena text: following instructions
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category instruction_following
1,455
Arena score
95% range 1,449 to 1,460, 17,170 votes
Strong effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: following instructions score (lmarena)
Arena text: business and management
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category industry_business_and_management_and_financial_operations
1,447
Arena score
95% range 1,440 to 1,454, 8,881 votes
Middle effort: xHigh, bradley-terry rating GPT-5.6 Terra (xHigh)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra Arena text: business and management score (lmarena)
Arena WebDev: building web appsNot enough data
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (private set), benchmark released 2026-06-12
86.0%
share of problems solved
standard error ±2.1 points
Top tier effort: max, best score across scorers gpt-5.6-terra_max
epoch · frontiermath_tiers_1_3_v2.csv
9 Jul 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score (epoch) · Run details for FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025, benchmark released 2024-12-19
99.7%
share of problems solved
standard error ±0.3 points
Top tier effort: max, best score across scorers gpt-5.6-terra_max
epoch · otis_mock_aime_2024_2025.csv
9 Jul 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
GPQA Diamond
GPQA Diamond, benchmark released 2023-11-20
93.3%
share of questions correct
standard error ±1.5 points
Top tier effort: max, best score across scorers gpt-5.6-terra_max
epoch · gpqa_diamond.csv
9 Jul 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra GPQA Diamond score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
SimpleQA Verified
SimpleQA Verified, benchmark released 2025-09-09
43.2%
share of questions correct
standard error ±1.6 points
Middle effort: max, best score across scorers gpt-5.6-terra_max
epoch · simpleqa_verified.csv
10 Aug 2026 Source for GPT-5.6 Terra SimpleQA Verified score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)Not enough data
FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)
FrontierCode, benchmark released 2026-06-08, aggregation Mean@5
41.3%
mean score over 5 attempts
no uncertainty figure published
Not rated (results use different tools) effort: max, tool: codex, mean@5 gpt-5.6-terra_unknown
epoch · frontiercode_external.csv
not provided Source for GPT-5.6 Terra FrontierCode (reported by Cognition) score (epoch) · Run details for FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)

Missing evidence

Not enough data for these tests:

  • Arena WebDev: building web apps
  • SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)

Missing results are not low scores and do not count against the model.

Where a source gives no public run log, we cannot show the run behind the score. See data sources.

Not sure this is the right one?

Tell us what you need help with and we'll narrow the options down.

Find my AI