Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna

Updated October 7, 2026. Rank says Claude Haiku 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVAPI/MCP

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo

Anthropic

66.32/100

Estimated · Public rank #28

Conditional range 52.0–80.7

Model B
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

65.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #33

Conditional range 55.9–75.3

Shared results
0
Claude Haiku 5.5 only
5
GPT-6 Luna only
10
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: Claude Haiku 5.5 and GPT-6 Luna. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Haiku 5.5

    Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 60.9 to 54, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-6 Luna

    GPT-6 Luna has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-6 Luna is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    No clear pick

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    No clear pick

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    No clear pick

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

60.9Claude Haiku 5.554.0GPT-6 Luna

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Haiku 5.5
60.9
Supported · #20/146
GPT-6 Luna
54.0
Supported · #36/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Claude Haiku 5.5 leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Haiku 5.5
62.1
Supported · #18/122
GPT-6 Luna
54.8
Estimated · #37/122
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
79.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-6 Luna
55.9
#25/28
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
Not ranked
GPT-6 Luna
78.5
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
Not ranked
GPT-6 Luna
64.2
Supported · #28/174
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
Not ranked
GPT-6 Luna
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
Not ranked
GPT-6 Luna
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5
Not ranked
GPT-6 Luna
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Haiku 5.5
$0.00035
Fits in one request
GPT-6 Luna
$0.00035
Fits in one request

Modeled costs are equal

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Haiku 5.5
$0.0065
Fits in one request
GPT-6 Luna
$0.0065
Fits in one request

Modeled costs are equal

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Haiku 5.5
$0.009
Fits in one request
GPT-6 Luna
$0.009
Fits in one request

Modeled costs are equal

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Reasoning profile

Claude Haiku 5.5

Reasoning

GPT-6 Luna

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Haiku 5.5

Proprietary

GPT-6 Luna

Proprietary

License

Claude Haiku 5.5

Proprietary

GPT-6 Luna

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Haiku 5.5

2026-10-07

GPT-6 Luna

2026-09-22

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0065 vs $0.0065. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.009 vs $0.009.
Context tradeoff
GPT-6 Luna has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GPT-6 Luna?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GPT-6 Luna?

Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 60.9 to 54, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GPT-6 Luna?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 62.1 to 54.8. GPT-6 Luna is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GPT-6 Luna?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00035 on Claude Haiku 5.5 and $0.00035 on GPT-6 Luna; repository review costs $0.0065 and $0.0065; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.009 and $0.009. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GPT-6 Luna?

GPT-6 Luna has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence15 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Haiku 5.539.20%
    Source
    GPT-6 Luna—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Haiku 5.557.4%
    Source
    GPT-6 Luna—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna11.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Haiku 5.546.4%
    Source
    GPT-6 Luna—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna66.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna86.70%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna0.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Haiku 5.546.4%
    Source
    GPT-6 Luna—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Haiku 5.545.9%
    Source
    GPT-6 Luna—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna50.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna54.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna60.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna61.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Claude Haiku 5.5—
    GPT-6 Luna31.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

15 public results · 0 shared

Watch Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 7, 2026