GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#31 of 4652.7 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#6 of 44$0.026 per LiveBench case#4 of 44$0.021 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#4 of 3864.8 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Openai · Sep 3, 2026$0.113Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$1.20Openai · Sep 3, 2026$0.382Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,050K1,000K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8-Flash
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader77.0597% of row best · percent · gpt-5.6-luna-max · 21,799 output tokens / case79.12100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-flash-next · 54,438 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified84.47100% of row best · points · GPT-5.6 Luna (ultra) · 17,605 output tokens / case83.2098% of row best · points · Qwen3.8 Flash · 24,187 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldGPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8-Flash
DeveloperOpenAIQwen
FamilyGpt 5 6Qwen3 8 Flash
ModelGPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8-Flash
VersionGPT-5.6 LunaQwen3.8-Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoff2026-02-16Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,050K1,000K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessOpenai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision

GPT-5.6 Luna Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-5.6-luna

Qwen3.8 Flash Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.8-flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs

Is GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GPT-5.6 Luna and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

GPT-5.6 Luna is $0.20 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.113 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric. GPT-5.6 Luna is $1.20 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.382 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger sourced context window. GPT-5.6 Luna supports 1,050K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. GPT-5.6 Luna is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.

Can GPT-5.6 Luna and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+

GPT-5.6 Luna is documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: GPT-5.6 Luna supports 128K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 131K output tokens.

Do GPT-5.6 Luna and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

GPT-5.6 Luna: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

GPT-5.6 Luna has 2 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Qwen3.8 Flash has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback