Roboflow

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare GPT-6 Luna and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side.

Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where GPT-6 Luna leads 52.1% to 35.1%.

Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 68.8% (#29 of 57) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0004 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 11.3s per sample).

GPT-6 LunaQwen3.8 Flash

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-6 LunaQwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.150
Output $/1M$0.470
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%
68.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0004$0.0004
Avg speed / sample11.27s6.48s
By task
Object Detection (low)
56.8%
±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5
$0.0006
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
64.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5
$0.0016
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
65.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6
$0.0003
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
64.4%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2
$0.0006
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
81.3%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3
$0.0002
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0003
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
87.9%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3
$0.0005
88.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 88.9
$0.0003
OCR (high)
88.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2
$0.0014
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.8 to 91.9
$0.0005
Data Extraction (low)
68.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1
$0.0002
84.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 86.6
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
66.7%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0
$0.0004
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (low)
52.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6
$0.0003
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
60.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3
$0.0006
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.8% (#29 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.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 52.1% against 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0004. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s per inference against 11.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.