Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 77.7% to 64.2%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 69.7% (#21 of 63) for GPT-6 Luna.
GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0033 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 10.4s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Video Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.1% | 69.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 10.43s | 10.21s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 | 65.5% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 71.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 | 72.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0 |
| Identification (low) | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 71.8% | 59.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 77.4% | 62.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 | 64.2% ±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 | 71.1% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 69.7% (#21 of 63) 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, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 77.7% 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 $0.0033. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 10.2s per inference against 10.4s. 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 open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.