Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Luna vs Qwen3 Max
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.7 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 Max in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Luna leads 77.5 to 37.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 82.1% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 18.9% for Qwen3 Max.
- GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
- GPT-5.6 Luna accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.7 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 33 |
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: 53.9 (#25), Qwen3 Max: 42.4 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1466 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,667 | 370.45 |
| DeepSWE | 67.2% | — |
| FrontierCode | 39.8% | — |
| CursorBench | 35.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1517 | — |
| SciCode | 53.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Luna: 35.3 (#37), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,095 | 71.56 |
| BALROG | 45.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.7% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 47.5 (#38), Qwen3 Max: 22.0 (#186)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 49.1% | 72.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 69.4% | 30.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1448 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 5% |
| DTBench | 89.1% | 82.1% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 28.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.32 | 142.41 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 59.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 46.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 88% | — |
| CritPt | 20.6% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 61.9% | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 77.5 (#12), Qwen3 Max: 37.6 (#94)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 82.1% | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 61% | — |
| ProofBench | 60% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 58.6 (#31), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.6% | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | 48.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1479 | 1457 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Luna: 43.0 (#22), Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 22.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1457 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 53.0 (#73), Qwen3 Max: 53.9 (#58)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1418 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1479 |
| LMArena French | 1457 | 1450 |
| LMArena German | 1459 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1399 |
| LMArena Korean | 1414 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1428 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1445 | 1463 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Luna: 76.0 (#48), Qwen3 Max: 75.0 (#81)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1440 | 1420 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 43.9 (#78), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#129)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1439 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Luna leads
GPT-5.6 Luna: 68.3 (#27), Qwen3 Max: 62.6 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Luna | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1432 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1397 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1433 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1829 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1156 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Luna better than Qwen3 Max?
GPT-5.6 Luna is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.7 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3 Max?
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.
Is GPT-5.6 Luna or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Luna scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.9 versus 42.4 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 Qwen3 Max share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Luna has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.