Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 68.9% to 64.2%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 77.2% (#19 of 61) for GPT-6 Luna.
GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0005 per sample) and faster (9.9s vs 13.2s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.2% | 77.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 9.89s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 65.5% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6 |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 71.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | 72.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 90.1% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0 | 90.6% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.4 |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6 | 91.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.9 to 93.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6 | 83.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 84.5 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6 | 84.9% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 85.6 |
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 64.2% ±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 71.1% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.
The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-6 Luna averages 77.2% (#19 of 61) against 77.2% (#20 of 61) for Claude Haiku 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 68.9% against 64.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0005. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; GPT-6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.9s per inference against 13.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.