Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6 Luna
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 81.2% to 64.2%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 69.7% (#21 of 63) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0045 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 12.8s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6 Luna

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
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$0.825$0.100
Output $/1M$4.13$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
79.8%
69.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0045$0.0004
Avg speed / sample12.76s10.21s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0045
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.023
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0040
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.027
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0016
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0037
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
OCR (low)
72.8%
$0.0049
59.8%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
73.5%
Transcription
91.3%
Structured JSON
86.1%
Text localization
26.4%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
OCR (high)
78.7%
$0.039
62.5%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
94.1%
Structured JSON
90.9%
Text localization
58.6%
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0038
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.023
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

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, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#7 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 3.8 Flash leads with 81.2% 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 $0.0045. Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.83 per 1M input tokens and $4.13 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 12.8s. 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.