Navigate
Advertise here

GPT-5.6 Luna (low) vs Qwen3.6 Flash

GPT-5.6 Luna (low) leads on average score with 6.2 vs 6.1. GPT-5.6 Luna (low) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.051 vs $0.062. Qwen3.6 Flash is faster at 3.73s vs 5.20s, with pass rates of 54.5% vs 34.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-08

Compared models

Rank
#190
Total Output Tokens
26,286
Response Time (avg)
5.20s
Total Cost
$0.051
Rank
#200
Total Output Tokens
30,947
Response Time (avg)
3.73s
Total Cost
$0.062
Recommended model Qwen3.6 Flash

It offers the best overall trade-off: a competitive score (6.1), faster response than GPT-5.6 Luna (low), and balanced cost.

Detailed comparison

Metric GPT-5.6 Luna GPT-5.6 Luna low Release: 2026-07-09 Qwen3.6 Flash Qwen3.6 Flash none Release: 2026-04-20
Score 6.2 6.1
Rank #190 #200
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.2 9.6
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 54.5% 34.9%
Flaky tests 5 1
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 2.437 0.935
Total Cost $0.051 $0.062
Input Price $0.200 / 1M $0.188 / 1M
Output Price $1.200 / 1M $1.125 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 96,355 139,797
Output Tokens 8,213 30,947
Reasoning Tokens 18,073 0
Response Time (avg) 5.20s 3.73s
Response Time (max) 19.44s 48.79s
Response Time (total) 114.46s 81.95s
Parameters ~400B total (~17B active) ~35B total (~3B active)
Availability Closed Closed

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#190 GPT-5.6 Luna

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

#200 Qwen3.6 Flash

none
Cost
$0.005
Time
20.1s
Tokens
4,211 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
Qwen3.6 Flash 5.4 10.0 33.3% 0 1.79s 6,488 889 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair