GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare GPT-6 Luna and MiMo V2.6 Flash 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 MiMo V2.6 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Luna scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Luna leads 56.8% to 37.8%.
Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0004 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 11.3s per sample).
GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Luna | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| 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% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0004 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.27s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.8% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 64.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 64.4% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3 | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 87.9% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3 | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | 88.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2 | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 68.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 66.7% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 52.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
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.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.6% (#32 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. 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 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0004. GPT-6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.2s per inference against 11.3s. 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 captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.