Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Luna scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Qwen3.5-27B leads 83.8% to 68.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 70.8% (#25 of 57) for Qwen3.5-27B.

GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0043 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 80.4s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaQwen3.5-27B

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaQwen3.5-27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.1M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.195
Output $/1M$0.500$1.56
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%
70.8%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1670.8%FP870.9%AWQ-INT469.4%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0043
Avg speed / sample11.27s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
Counting (low)
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
Identification (low)
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
OCR (low)
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
84.7%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 87.3
$0
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
Data Extraction (low)
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
83.8%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 85.6
$0
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5-27B: 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.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5-27B performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.5-27B averages 70.8% (#25 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.

No. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.5-27B leads with 83.8% against 68.0%. 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 $0.0043. 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 80.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.