Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-6 Luna

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-6 Luna side-by-side.

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-6 Luna 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 Terra vs GPT-6 Luna on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 79.7% to 68.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 73.8% (#21 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0088 per sample), while GPT-5.6 Terra is faster (7.7s vs 11.3s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraGPT-6 Luna

GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-6 Luna Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-6 Luna
OrganizationOpenAIOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.1M1.1M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$12.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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%
68.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0088$0.0004
Avg speed / sample7.74s11.27s
By task
Object Detection (low)
60.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7
$0.014
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
61.3%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6
$0.026
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
Counting (low)
65.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6
$0.0056
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
Counting (high)
62.6%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9
$0.0076
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
Identification (low)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0034
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
Identification (high)
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0038
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
OCR (low)
89.4%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 90.3
$0.012
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
OCR (high)
89.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 90.1
$0.023
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
Data Extraction (low)
79.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 80.4
$0.0038
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
80.4%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0043
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
60.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6
$0.0051
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
65.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2
$0.0067
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006

GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-6 Luna: Overview

GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Terra scores 84.3%, matching Claude Fable 5 on that benchmark. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.

GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.

GPT-6 Luna

GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.

The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Terra performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 73.8% (#21 of 57) against 68.6% (#32 of 57) for GPT-6 Luna. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, GPT-5.6 Terra leads with 79.7% against 68.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0088. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.6 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.7s per inference against 11.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.