Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 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-6 Luna
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Luna scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Luna leads 65.5% to 19.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 69.7% (#21 of 63) against 55.3% (#46 of 63) for Grok 4.5.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0078 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 16.4s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaGrok 4.5

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGPT-6 LunaGrok 4.5
OrganizationOpenAISpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M500K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$2.00
Output $/1M$0.500$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
69.7%
55.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0078
Avg speed / sample10.21s16.41s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
Counting (low)
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
Counting (high)
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
Identification (high)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
OCR (low)
59.8%
$0.0004
57.1%
$0.0065
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
80.3%
Text localization
6.1%
OCR (high)
62.5%
$0.0013
57.5%
$0.013
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
86.1%
Structured JSON
80.9%
Text localization
7.0%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
Reasoning (high)
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5: Overview

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.

Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.

For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.