GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals
Grok 4.5 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 59.9% to 18.0%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 71.5% (#14 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.
GPT-5.6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 14.3s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Luna | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | SpaceXAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.5M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.600 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 71.5% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0077 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.55s | 14.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 59.9% $0.0008 | 18.0% $0.0100 |
| Counting | 66.2% $0.0003 | 55.4% $0.0065 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0002 | 78.1% $0.0045 |
| OCR | 88.4% $0.0006 | 92.5% $0.0065 |
| Data Extraction | 81.4% $0.0002 | 83.5% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (low) | 55.0% $0.0003 | 58.3% $0.0076 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.9% $0.0007 | 59.6% $0.011 |
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5: Overview
GPT-5.6 Luna is the fastest and most cost-efficient model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Sol (the flagship tier) and Terra (the balanced mid-tier). Introduced under a new naming convention where the generation number (5.6) and a durable capability tier name (Luna, Terra, Sol) together define each model, Luna occupies the lightweight end of the family and is designed for high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads such as summarization, drafting, autocomplete, classification, and routine automation. The GPT-5.6 family as a whole advances capabilities in software engineering, computer use, professional knowledge work, scientific research, and cybersecurity, with all three tiers rated at the "High" capability level under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework for both cybersecurity and biological/chemical risk domains.
GPT-5.6 Luna supports multimodal input and function calling, and shares the family's 1.5 million token context window. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Luna scores 82.5%, and on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index it outperforms comparable models at roughly one-quarter the estimated cost of higher-tier alternatives. Luna is priced at $1 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens, with cached input reads at $0.10 per million tokens under the GPT-5.6 prompt caching scheme, which introduces explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life. The model was previewed on June 26, 2026 to a limited group of trusted partners via the OpenAI API and Codex, with general availability rolling out on July 9, 2026 across ChatGPT, Codex, and the API.
Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.
For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.5 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 64.3% (#25 of 30) against 71.5% (#14 of 30) for GPT-5.6 Luna. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, GPT-5.6 Luna leads with 59.9% against 18.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0077. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.60 per 1M output; Grok 4.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-5.6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s per inference against 14.3s. 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 classification and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.