Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.
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.
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 Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 52.1%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna.
GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.014 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 12.8s per sample).
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | ||
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.5% | 68.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.014 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 12.76s | 11.27s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8 | 56.8% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8 | 64.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 65.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 64.4% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 81.3% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 87.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2 | 87.9% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3 |
| OCR (high) | 87.2% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8 | 88.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 68.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 66.7% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0 |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 52.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 60.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview
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. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. 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 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 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) 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 52.1%. 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 $0.014. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.3s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.