OpenGPTEvidence-based model decisionsStarting candidate 1
StableGPT-5.6 Sol
gpt-5.6-solOpenAIObjective tasks · #1
02 · TASK RANKING
Coding & debugging
Implementation, defect analysis, tests, and technical trade-offs.
- Official version
- 3
- Public evidence
- 2
- Data cutoff:
- Why these candidates
- Use objective-task coverage as a starting signal and include one coding-specific official version for direct testing.
- What remains uncertain
- The public objective ranking is broader than coding; repository context and tool access can change the result.
- Public evidence
- Objective tasks
- Data cutoff
Starting candidate
3 / 3Three official versions to test first
Public data narrows the field. It does not replace a controlled test on your own work.
Starting candidate 2
StableClaude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8AnthropicObjective tasks · #5
Starting candidate 3
StableQwen3 Coder Plus
qwen3-coder-plus-2025-09-23Alibaba QwenNo comparable public result is currently mapped to this exact version.
Public evidenceThe models use different public evidence scales. Missing evidence is not treated as zero, and OpenGPT does not combine unlike sources into one score.⌄
GPT-5.6 Sol
- Source
- LiveBench ↗
- Source rank
- #1
- Source value
- 82.4
- Mapping reviewed
Claude Opus 4.8
- Source
- LiveBench ↗
- Source rank
- #5
- Source value
- 78.9
- Mapping reviewed
Qwen3 Coder Plus
No comparable public result is currently mapped to this exact version.
A practical starting point, not a universal winnerSelect two or three candidates for a side-by-side public data comparison.
The models use different public evidence scales. Missing evidence is not treated as zero, and OpenGPT does not combine unlike sources into one score.
The public objective ranking is broader than coding; repository context and tool access can change the result.
The evaluation opens with this task template and the first two selected models. You can edit every task before collecting answers.