Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna

Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Luna score 82.0% vs 69.7% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#4 and #22 of 65 models), so Claude Opus 5.5 leads overall.

  • Claude Opus 5.5 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (83.0% vs 64.2%).
  • GPT-6 Luna is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0004 vs $0.015 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 is faster: 7.6s vs 10.2s per sample.

Compare Claude Opus 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.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6 Luna
Run to compare this model.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Opus 5.5GPT-6 Luna
Reasoning
83.0
64.2
OCR
78.3
59.8
Object Detection
74.5
65.5
Counting
80.6
71.6
Identification
93.8
87.5

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 7, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5GPT-6 Luna
OrganizationAnthropicOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.100
Output $/1M$20.00$0.500
Vision Tasks
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
82.0%
69.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0004
Avg speed / sample7.63s10.21s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
59.8%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
62.5%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004

Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

GPT-6 Luna

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, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#4 of 65) against 69.7% (#22 of 65) for GPT-6 Luna. 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 Opus 5.5 leads with 83.0% 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 $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 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.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 10.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.