GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Wonder
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Wonder live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 60.5%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 64.7% (#28 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
GPT-5.6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0011 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (8.6s vs 11.7s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Luna | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.5M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.200 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $1.20 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| 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% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0011 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.60s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.0% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.9 to 62.2 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 62.3% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.4 to 63.8 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 67.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 70.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 73.0 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 84.4% ±6.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 90.6 | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 51.8% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 55.7% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 60.5% ±5.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.0 to 64.9 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 65.6% ±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.9 to 68.2 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Muse Wonder: 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.
Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 64.7% (#28 of 62) 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 Wonder leads with 85.2% against 60.5%. 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.034. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 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 8.6s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.