Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-6 Luna
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

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 LunaMiMo V2.6 Flash

GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGPT-6 LunaMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.140
Output $/1M$0.500$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
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 / sample11.27s9.20s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: 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.

MiMo V2.6 Flash

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.