Solar Pro 3

Upstage
Solar Pro 3 combines 102 billion total parameters with about 12 billion active per token and a 128K context. Upstage adds tool calling and stronger instruction following for multi-step work and reports roughly doubled agentic scores over Solar Pro 2, including 72.3 versus 36.0 on Tau2-all.
The published model lineage continues with Solar Pro 4, whose launch text describes a further step up on terminal tasks, long documents, and multi-turn tool use.
| Specification | Value and source |
|---|---|
| Weights | ProprietarySource |
| Access | APISource |
| Parameters | 102BSource |
| Active parameters | 12BSource |
| Context window | 131,072 tokensSource |
| Notes | MoE model with 102B total parameters, 12B activated parameters per token, and a 128K context window.Source |
| Release | 2026-01 (Month-only precision; source did not expose an exact day.)Source |
| Parameters | 102 BSource |
| Architecture | MoE, 102B total / 12B activeSource |
| Active parameters | 12 BSource |
| Reasoning mode | YesSource |
| Tool calling | YesSource |
Benchmark meta-analysis
These Gradually indexes place selected published measurements on a 0 to 100 scale. They are not accuracy percentages and do not guarantee results in your application.
Retrieval dates of the sources used 2026-10-19 - 2026-10-19
Not enough independent results for a score yet
An overall score needs results from at least two sources.
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index below 1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index below 1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index below 1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index below 1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index below 1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Method version: benchmark-meta-score-v3
The index includes active measurements from reviewed primary sources when at least five models are compared in the same documented comparison slice across dataset, harness, agent, tools, and trial count. Each benchmark series and evaluator contributes one shared setup slice from the newest capture. When one source and series include several explicitly documented reasoning tiers, the highest documented tier (none through max) is selected, never the best result value. The explicit source label “Non-reasoning” is treated as none. Unknown or ambiguous tiers exclude the model from that series. Within each series, percentages and rates are logit-transformed, other units stay unchanged, and all values are then standardized. A one-factor model then estimates one shared strength per model and, per series, how sharply it separates the models. Area scores move away from that strength only as far as the model's own results in the area support. The overall score weights the core areas at 75% and finance, law and health at 25%. It requires at least eight test series from two sources and three areas. The 0 to 100 scale refers to a fixed reference group of 29 language models whose average sits at 50.
Published model-specific parameters can differ. This is not a controlled experiment; comparisons with such differences are marked provisional.
Unmeasured series are not entered as zero. Where a model has no own results in a core area, its overall strength stands in, and the note “estimated without own results in …” names the area. Fewer test series lead to a larger standard error.
The 95% interval follows from the standard error of 200 recalculations with randomly redrawn test families. It describes how precisely the recorded test series determine the value. It is no prediction for future tasks or for later recalculations with other participants.
The source count is not a count of independent experiments.
OECD handbook on composite indicatorsAll 9 test families and 9 of 9 raw measurements are listed here. The complete calculation for every model is available in the JSON export.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 0.89 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 1.53 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 0.89 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 1.53 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 0.89 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 2.14 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 3.57 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 1.53 % · Coverage of this test family: 50 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Family weight in the fixed test panel (informative): 0.71 % · Coverage of this test family: 50 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Each evaluator measures different capabilities under its own conditions. Test series, composite indices and their components stay separate. The detailed results below retain their scales, configurations and source dates.
| Evaluator | Test series | Composite indices | Recorded active measurements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis | 9 | 1 | 19 |
Coverage is not a quality ranking. Overlapping tests and multiple settings do not count as independent experiments. Vendor claims, historical and disputed results are excluded from this overview and remain labelled in the detailed evidence.
7 measurements from these sources still lack a verified test-family identity and do not increase the test-series count.
Page 1 of 3
These measurements have no matching peer values under the same test conditions. Their original values and sources remain available here.
Page 1 of 3
One SVG prompt and fixed output settings. Captures are shown only with 0 reported reasoning tokens or documented lack of reasoning controls. Identical test conditions do not make the models' internal compute identical.

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
Solar Pro 3

Reasoning (requested): high
Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.
Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Task origin (Simon Willison)28.6 / 100
Upstage calls Solar Pro 3 'the latest update to Solar Pro' and states it 'delivers meaningful gains across every category compared to Solar Pro 2' while existing Solar Pro 2 users can switch with no configuration changes.
Upstage Solar Pro 3 launch blog (2026-09-19)Upstage's Solar Pro 4 post states 'Compared with Solar Pro 3, its agent capability took a major step up, and the gains are largest on evaluations that resemble real work.'.
Upstage Solar Pro 4 launch blog (2026-09-19)