GPT-5.6 Terra
openai/gpt-5.6-terra-20260709
OpenAI: GPT-5.6 Terra processes file, image, and text inputs to generate text outputs. It has a context length of 1,050,000 tokens and supports tools and reasoning. The model is priced at $2 per million input tokens and $12 per million output tokens, and it is not open-weight.
- tool use
- structured outputs
- reasoning
At a glance
Specifications
What the API gives you
- Context window
- 1.1M tokens
- Max output
- 128K tokens
- Input price
- $2 / 1M tokens
- Output price
- $12 / 1M tokens
- Cache read
- $0.20 / 1M tokens
- Modalities
- file, image, text → text
- Knowledge cutoff
- Feb 16, 2026
- Released
- Jul 9, 2026
Measured evidence
Public benchmark record
- FACTS Grounding
- 71.2%2026-07-15evaluated 2026-07-15
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (Epoch AI)‡
- 86% ± 2.12026-07-09max effort, evaluated 2026-07-09
- GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)‡
- 87.4% ± 2.42026-08-07low effort, evaluated 2026-08-07
- GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)‡
- 93.3% ± 1.52026-07-09max effort, evaluated 2026-07-09
- LiveBench Agentic Coding
- 55.0%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Coding
- 78.3%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Data Analysis
- 79.3%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Instruction Following
- 64.6%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Language
- 82.9%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Math
- 94.9%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Reasoning
- 90.6%2026-10-18
- LMArena Agent‡
- 0.52026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Agent Bash Recovery‡
- 0.92026-10-08xhigh effort
- LMArena Agent Steerability‡
- 2.52026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Agent Task Outcome‡
- -3.42026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Agent Tool Hallucination‡
- 0.52026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Creative Writing‡
- 1413 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Instruction Following‡
- 1456 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Long Query‡
- 1454 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Math‡
- 1465 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Text‡
- 1467 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Text Factuality‡
- 1468 Elo2026-10-20xhigh effort
- LMArena Vision‡
- 1268 Elo2026-10-19xhigh effort
- LMArena Vision Diagrams‡
- 1299 Elo2026-10-19xhigh effort
- LMArena Vision OCR‡
- 1278 Elo2026-10-19xhigh effort
- OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)‡
- 88.9% ± 4.72026-08-07low effort, evaluated 2026-08-07
- OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)‡
- 99.7% ± 0.32026-07-09max effort, evaluated 2026-07-09
- SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI)‡
- 43.2% ± 1.62026-08-10max effort, evaluated 2026-08-10
- Terminal-Bench (4.0)‡
- 21.5%2026-10-21Codex, max effort, evaluated 2026-08-27
LMArena data licensed CC-BY-4.0. Aider (Apache-2.0) and SWE-bench (MIT) are open. Design Arena uses blind human preference. ‡ Submitted scaffold plus model result. Compare the harness and effort settings, not only the model name.
Task evidence
How broad is the support?
Each status is exact to this model version and the selected task. Official release claims remain provisional.
- Best LLM for Competition MathEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Business WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Logic & Problem SolvingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Marketing CopyEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Chat & RoleplayEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Creative WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
Show all 45 tasks
- Best LLM for WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Roleplay & CharacterEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Math & ReasoningEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 5 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for a General AssistantEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Document SummarizationEstablished evidence
85% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for SummarizationEstablished evidence
85% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Autonomous AgentsEstablished evidence
67% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Open-Weight LLM for Self-HostingEstablished evidence
64% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Grounded RAGEstablished evidence
62% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Image UnderstandingEstablished evidence
61% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for RAG & Long ContextEstablished evidence
61% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Agentic CodingEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Fast SummariesEstablished evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Value LLMEstablished evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for AI AgentsEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 9 of 9 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Literary TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Everyday TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Hermes AgentEstablished evidence
48% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OpenHandsEstablished evidence
48% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for GooseEstablished evidence
48% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OpenClawEstablished evidence
48% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Cheap LLM for High VolumeEstablished evidence
40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Cheapest Capable LLMEstablished evidence
40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for JSON & Schema OutputEstablished evidence
35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Structured Data ExtractionEstablished evidence
35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for CodingEstablished evidence
29% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OCR & DocumentsProvisional evidence
65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Charts & DiagramsProvisional evidence
65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Vision & DocumentsProvisional evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 4 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Document ParsingProvisional evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Massive ContextProvisional evidence
47% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from LongBench v2. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Code CompletionProvisional evidence
43% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Aider Polyglot or LMArena WebDev. 3 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Tool & Function CallingProvisional evidence
38% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Berkeley Function Calling or LMArena Search. 6 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Local LLM for CodingProvisional evidence
26% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Aider Polyglot or LMArena WebDev. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for High-Volume ExtractionProvisional evidence
21% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Route reliability or Structured-output eval. 1 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Debugging & Code ReviewProvisional evidence
17% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Aider Polyglot or LMArena WebDev. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Computer & Browser UseProvisional evidence
17% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Berkeley Function Calling or OSWorld Verified. 3 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Frontend & UIProvisional evidence
9% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Design Arena Coding or Design Arena UI. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
Official release evidence · provisional
What the launch material actually says
Verbatim claims from the model provider. These help on launch day but do not count as independent confirmation.
“Terra performs just above Fable 5, while Luna outperforms Opus 4.8; each does so in roughly one-third of the time, with about half as many output tokens, and at approximately one-quarter the estimated cost.”
OpenAI · GPT-5.6: Frontier intelligence that scales with your ambition | OpenAI“GPT‑5.6 Terra and GPT‑5.6 Luna outperform Fable 5 at around one-sixteenth the cost.”
OpenAI · GPT-5.6: Frontier intelligence that scales with your ambition | OpenAI
Recommendation coverage
Where this model appears
Catalog data via OpenRouter and models.dev. Last checked within the past 6 hours.