Qwen3.8 27B vs GPT-5.6 Luna

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4#31 of 4652.7 score · 3/3 sources · complete
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case#6 of 44$0.026 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5#4 of 3864.8 score · 3/3 sources · complete
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$0.20Openai · Sep 3, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$1.20Openai · Sep 3, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,050K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 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 →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BGPT-5.6 Luna
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · statistical tie-0.64100% of row best · score · Qwen 3.8 27B; 95% CI [-1.36495564, 0.07819043]; sessions 37257; observations 4349219; rank 29-0.44100% of row best · score · GPT 5.6 Luna (xHigh); 95% CI [-1.27310649, 0.39719069]; sessions 29186; observations 2307801; rank 27
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,439.27100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,429.8999% of row best · rating · gpt-5.6-luna-xhigh; 95% CI [1425.11549148, 1434.66063238]; votes 28547; rank 86
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,272.12100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1262.21853873, 1282.01179703]; votes 4577; rank 351,258.5399% of row best · rating · gpt-5.6-luna-xhigh; 95% CI [1250.17799393, 1266.87249678]; votes 7793; rank 48
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case77.0599% of row best · percent · gpt-5.6-luna-max · 21,799 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 3 ties1 benchmark winNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo overall winner

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

Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost

Full ranking →
Efficiency FrontierLiveBench overall · output estimate
Upper-left is better
xAIZ.aiMiniMaxDeepSeekOpenAIQwenGoogle DeepMindMoonshot AIAnthropic
LiveBench quality versus score-adjusted output costEach dot is a reviewed major-model configuration and is colored by developer. Higher means a better LiveBench overall score. Farther left means lower estimated output cost after adjusting by the score. A dotted line connects the non-dominated frontier observations. When models are selected, their sourced families remain prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and an orange ring identifies each selected model.$0.0050$0.010$0.050$0.100$0.500$1.006873798489Grok Build 0.1GLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)GPT-5.6 Sol (max)GPT-6 Astra (max)Claude Fable 5.1Score-adjusted output cost per LiveBench case (log) →LiveBench overall →
The dotted frontier connects measured, non-dominated major-model observations. With a selection, sourced families stay prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and orange rings mark the selected model or models. Family lines connect models only when their sourced family and generation match. Cost is estimated from published output tokens and the lowest current USD output rate; it excludes input, caching, batch discounts, and provider-specific benchmark execution details.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.8-27BGPT-5.6 Luna
DeveloperQwenOpenAI
FamilyQwen3 8 27bGpt 5 6
ModelQwen3.8-27BGPT-5.6 Luna
VersionQwen3.8-27BGPT-5.6 Luna
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2026-02-16
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,050K
Total parameters27.8BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0Unknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

GPT-5.6 Luna Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-5.6-luna

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs GPT-5.6 Luna FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and GPT-5.6 Luna, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and GPT-5.6 Luna is $0.20 per million tokens, so they are tied on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and GPT-5.6 Luna is $1.20 per million tokens, so GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and GPT-5.6 Luna supports 1,050K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna be self-hosted?+

Qwen3.8 27B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; GPT-5.6 Luna is not marked open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and GPT-5.6 Luna understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; GPT-5.6 Luna is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced maximum output: Qwen3.8 27B supports 131K and GPT-5.6 Luna supports 128K output tokens.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and GPT-5.6 Luna support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GPT-5.6 Luna: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; GPT-5.6 Luna has 2, so Qwen3.8 27B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or GPT-5.6 Luna?+

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