Updated October 19, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.6 Luna is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public score estimate, 64.4 versus 49.61, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public coding point estimate, 61.7 to 35.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public agentic point estimate, 56 to 35.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
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.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
GPT-5.6 Luna 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.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 58.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 52.6SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 8.5MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 0.2Each 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.
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Luna | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 35.6Supported · #81/130 | 56.0Supported · #41/130 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 10 public rows | GPT-5.6 Luna leads |
| Coding | 35.8Supported · #77/151 | 61.7Supported · #16/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows | GPT-5.6 Luna leads |
| Knowledge | 49.1Supported · #86/186 | 64.8Supported · #38/186 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows | GPT-5.6 Luna leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 70.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 58.2#26/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 80.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | 79.6#19/55 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 37.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 84.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.6 Luna has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-5.6 Luna
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGPT-5.6 Luna
gpt-5.6-luna
OpenAI model catalogA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGPT-5.6 Luna
$0.02 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationGPT-5.6 Luna
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-5.6 Luna
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideGPT-5.6 Luna
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
GPT-5.6 Luna
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Luna
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
GPT-5.6 Luna
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
GPT-5.6 Luna
2026-07-09
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public score estimate, 64.4 versus 49.61, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public coding point estimate, 61.7 to 35.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
GPT-5.6 Luna has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 56 to 35.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and $0.0008 on GPT-5.6 Luna; repository review costs $0.0225 and $0.0136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.037 and $0.02. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GPT-5.6 Luna leads this result
FrontierMath (legacy)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 19, 2026
