Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

OpenAI: GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

The average score is effectively tied at 6.2 vs 6.2. Qwen3.5-Flash (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.139 vs $0.249. GPT-5.6 Luna (low) is faster at 5.04s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 56.1% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelGPT-5.6 Luna (low)It has the best score here (6.2), while responding about 16.8x faster than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-17

Metric GPT-5.6 Luna GPT-5.6 Luna low Release: 2026-07-09 Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.2 6.2
Rank #111 #108
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.2 7.8
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 56.1% 69.7%
Flaky tests 5 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 2.490 1.361
Total Cost $0.249 $0.139
Input Price $1.000 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $6.000 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 96,346 118,499
Output Tokens 8,211 12,284
Reasoning Tokens 17,227 490,610
Response Time (avg) 5.04s 84.82s
Response Time (max) 19.44s 515.38s
Response Time (total) 110.88s 1781.22s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#111 GPT-5.6 Luna

low
Cost
$0.011
Time
10.2s
Tokens
1,897 tok

#108 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 4.61s 7,302 557 3,535
Qwen3.5-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair