Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.1

Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Muse Spark 1.1 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 Muse Spark 1.1 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.
MetaMuse Spark 1.1
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.1 on Vision Evals

Muse Spark 1.1 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Spark 1.1 leads 74.8% to 55.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 71.5% (#13 of 25) against 79.2% (#6 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.1.

GPT-5.6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 11.4s per sample).

GPT-5.6 LunaMuse Spark 1.1

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.1 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 LunaMuse Spark 1.1
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$1.25
Output $/1M$0.600$4.25
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
71.5%
79.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0005$0.0069
Avg speed / sample6.55s11.40s
By task
Object Detection
59.9%
$0.0008
58.2%
$0.010
Counting
66.2%
$0.0003
75.7%
$0.0043
Identification
78.1%
$0.0002
87.5%
$0.0032
OCR
88.4%
$0.0006
92.5%
$0.0063
Data Extraction
81.4%
$0.0002
86.6%
$0.0031
Reasoning (low)
55.0%
$0.0003
74.8%
$0.0065
Reasoning (high)
60.9%
$0.0007
76.2%
$0.013

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Spark 1.1: 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.

Muse Spark 1.1

Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.

Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.1 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.2% (#6 of 25) against 71.5% (#13 of 25) for GPT-5.6 Luna. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Spark 1.1 leads with 74.8% against 55.0%. 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 $0.0069. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.60 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 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 11.4s. 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 image classification and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.