Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Hy3
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 44.2 on the Noometry Index. Hy3 costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Luna's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher in 6 categories and Hy3 in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 77.7 to 40.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 69.4% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 41.2% for Hy3.
- Hy3 is cheaper at $0.13 / $0.53 per million input/output tokens, against $0.20 / $1.20 for GPT-5.6 Luna.
- GPT-5.6 Luna accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Hy3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 54.6 | 44.2 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-07-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $0.13 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $0.53 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 54.5 (#28), Hy3: 46.8 (#63)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1519 | 1508 |
| LMArena Coding | 1466 | 1464 |
| DeepSWE | 67.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 39.8% | — |
| CursorBench | 35.9% | — |
| SciCode | 53.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,667 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Luna: 34.4 (#45), Hy3: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| BALROG | 45.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.7% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,095 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 47.6 (#43), Hy3: 26.1 (#136)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 69.4% | 41.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1447 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 59.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 46.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 88% | — |
| CritPt | 20.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 89.1% | — |
| LMCA | 48.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 61.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.39 | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 77.7 (#14), Hy3: 40.1 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1458 | 1475 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 82.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 61% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 60% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 58.5 (#34), Hy3: 40.8 (#114)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1460 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Luna: 42.7 (#28), Hy3: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1258 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 22.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1457 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 52.8 (#78), Hy3: 53.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1426 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1493 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1439 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1411 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 1415 | 1395 |
| LMArena Russian | 1428 | 1432 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1456 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 75.6 (#57), Hy3: 75.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1426 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 43.9 (#82), Hy3: 44.1 (#75)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 68.0 (#29), Hy3: 62.2 (#81)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Hy3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1431 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1396 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1434 | 1436 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1829 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1156 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Luna better than Hy3?
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 44.2 on the Noometry Index. Hy3 costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Luna's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Luna or Hy3?
Hy3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.13 per million input tokens and $0.53 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Luna lists at $0.20 and $1.20.
Is GPT-5.6 Luna or Hy3 better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.5 versus 46.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Luna does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Luna and Hy3 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Luna has 52 scored results on Noometry and Hy3 has 19.