Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Grok 4.5 side-by-side.

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.

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-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Luna leads 56.8% to 19.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 65.8% (#40 of 57) for Grok 4.5.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0084 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 20.8s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaGrok 4.5

GPT-6 Luna vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaGrok 4.5
OrganizationOpenAISpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$6.00
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
68.6%
65.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0084
Avg speed / sample11.27s20.75s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
Counting (low)
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
Identification (low)
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
OCR (low)
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
92.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.5
$0.0068
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
92.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.9
$0.012
Data Extraction (low)
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
83.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 84.5
$0.0044
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
81.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 83.5
$0.0061
Reasoning (low)
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006
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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 65.8% (#40 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 Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 56.8% against 19.0%. 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 $0.0084. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.3s per inference against 20.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.