Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and MiMo V2.6 Flash 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 MiMo V2.6 Flash 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
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Luna
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 60.5% to 33.1%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 73.8% (#20 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0010 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Luna is faster (7.4s vs 9.2s per sample).

GPT-5.6 LunaMiMo V2.6 Flash

GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 LunaMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.200$0.140
Output $/1M$1.20$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
73.8%
60.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0010$0.0003
Avg speed / sample7.38s9.20s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.0%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.9 to 62.2
$0.0015
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
62.3%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.4 to 63.8
$0.0050
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
67.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0.0006
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
70.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 73.0
$0.0015
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0004
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
84.4%
±6.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 90.6
$0.0007
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
90.7%
±1.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.4 to 92.0
$0.0012
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
91.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.7
$0.0042
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
80.4%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.3 to 82.5
$0.0004
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
81.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 82.5
$0.0006
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
60.5%
±5.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.0 to 64.9
$0.0006
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
65.6%
±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.9 to 68.2
$0.0015
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

GPT-5.6 Luna

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.

MiMo V2.6 Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.

Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 73.8% (#20 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. 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, GPT-5.6 Luna leads with 60.5% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0010. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 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 7.4s per inference against 9.2s. 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.