GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare GPT-6 Luna and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side.
Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 75.9% to 52.1%.
Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 83.9% (#6 of 57) for Qwen3.8 Max.
GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 17.3s per sample).
GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Luna | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 984K |
| Parameters | 2.4T total, ~95B active | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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% | 83.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0004 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.27s | 17.25s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.8% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5 | 76.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 64.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5 | 78.4% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 78.9 |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6 | 81.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 64.4% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2 | 81.1% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 87.9% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3 | 93.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.9 |
| OCR (high) | 88.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2 | 91.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.7 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 68.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1 | 87.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 66.7% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0 | 89.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 52.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6 | 75.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 77.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3 | 80.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.2 to 82.1 |
GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview
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 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.
For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.9% (#6 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 75.9% against 52.1%. 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 $0.0074. 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 17.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.