Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Wonder

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Wonder 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 Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 64.2%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 69.7% (#20 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (10.2s vs 11.7s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaMuse Wonder

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaMuse Wonder
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$4.00
Output $/1M$0.500$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
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%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.034
Avg speed / sample10.21s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.5%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.0
$0.0006
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 68.6
$0.0014
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
71.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 71.6
$0.0002
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
72.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 73.0
$0.0004
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0002
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
59.8%
$0.0004
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
80.0%
Structured JSON
78.2%
Text localization
47.4%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
62.5%
$0.0013
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
44.4%
Transcription
84.0%
Structured JSON
81.0%
Text localization
50.0%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 66.2
$0.0003
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
71.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.2 to 72.8
$0.0004
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-6 Luna vs Muse Wonder: 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.

Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 69.7% (#20 of 62) for GPT-6 Luna. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 64.2%. 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 $0.034. GPT-6 Luna is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.2s per inference against 11.7s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.