Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Luna vs o1
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher in 9 categories and o1 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 77.7 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 82.1% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 14.7% for o1.
- GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- GPT-5.6 Luna accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 54.6 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 52 |
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), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 60.9% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1466 | 1367 |
| DeepSWE | 67.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 39.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| CursorBench | 35.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1519 | — |
| SciCode | 53.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,667 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 34.4 (#45), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| BALROG | 45.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.7% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,095 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 47.6 (#43), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 46.8% | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 88% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 15% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 89.1% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.39 | 141.91 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 59.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 69.4% | — |
| CritPt | 20.6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 61.9% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 77.7 (#14), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 82.1% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1458 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 61% | — |
| ProofBench | 60% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 58.5 (#34), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.6% | 76.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1361 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
Multimodal GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 42.7 (#28), o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1258 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 22.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1457 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 52.8 (#78), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1411 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1415 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1428 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1345 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 75.6 (#57), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
Long Context o1 leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 43.9 (#82), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 68.0 (#29), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1431 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1396 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1434 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1829 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1156 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Luna better than o1?
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Luna or o1?
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is GPT-5.6 Luna or o1 better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.5 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Luna does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Luna and o1 share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Luna has 52 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.