Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-6 Luna leads 65.8% to 50.0%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 67.4% (#33 of 57) for Qwen3.7 Plus.

GPT-6 Luna is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0008 per sample), while Qwen3.7 Plus is faster (7.0s vs 11.3s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaQwen3.7 Plus

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaQwen3.7 Plus
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jun 2026
Context Window1.1M
Parameters
LicenseProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.320
Output $/1M$1.28
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Chart Question Answering
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Vision Language
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%
67.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0008
Avg speed / sample11.27s7.01s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
60.1%
$0.0013
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
50.0%
$0.0004
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
84.4%
$0.0003
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
86.5%
$0.0009
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
83.5%
$0.0004
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
39.7%
$0.0003
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006
68.2%
$0.0043

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.7 Plus: 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.

Qwen3.7 Plus
No description available

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 67.4% (#33 of 57) for Qwen3.7 Plus. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 65.8% against 50.0%. 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 $0.0008. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.0s per inference against 11.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.