GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 66.2% to 41.9%.
Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 71.5% (#14 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
GPT-5.6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0018 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 7.3s per sample).
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.5M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $0.600 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | 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% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.55s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 59.9% $0.0008 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 66.2% $0.0003 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0002 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 88.4% $0.0006 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 81.4% $0.0002 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 55.0% $0.0003 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.9% $0.0007 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 71.5% (#14 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, GPT-5.6 Luna leads with 66.2% against 41.9%. 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 $0.0018. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.60 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 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 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.