Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 55.0% to 37.8%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Luna averages 71.5% (#14 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0010 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Luna is faster (6.5s vs 8.2s per sample).

GPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8 Flash

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.200$0.150
Output $/1M$1.20$0.470
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%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0010$0.0004
Avg speed / sample6.55s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
59.9%
$0.0015
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
66.2%
$0.0007
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
78.1%
$0.0004
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
88.4%
$0.0012
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
81.4%
$0.0004
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
55.0%
$0.0006
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
60.9%
$0.0015
68.9%
$0.0011

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Luna performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-5.6 Luna averages 71.5% (#14 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 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 55.0% against 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0010. GPT-5.6 Luna is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.20 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 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 8.2s. 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.