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, Object Detection, 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.
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
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 61.0% to 19.0%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 64.7% (#29 of 63) against 55.3% (#46 of 63) for Grok 4.5.
GPT-5.6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.0078 per sample) and faster (8.6s vs 16.4s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 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 | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.200 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | $6.00 |
| 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 |
| 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 | 64.7% | 55.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0011 | $0.0078 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.60s | 16.41s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.0% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.9 to 62.2 | 19.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6 |
| Object Detection (high) | 62.3% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.4 to 63.8 | 17.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0 |
| Counting (low) | 67.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9 | 59.5% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2 |
| Counting (high) | 70.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 73.0 | 57.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 84.4% ±6.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 90.6 | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 51.8% | 57.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 55.7% | 57.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 60.5% ±5.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.0 to 64.9 | 57.6% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 65.6% ±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.9 to 68.2 | 59.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3 |
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 supports 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.