Model comparison
GPT-6 Luna vs o3
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.4 to 45.1 on the Noometry Index. GPT-6 Luna costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6 Luna scores higher in 3 categories and o3 in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where o3 leads 54.5 to 40.1.
- GPT-6 Luna is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- GPT-6 Luna accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| GPT-6 Luna | o3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 45.1 | 47.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2025-04-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $8 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6 Luna leads
GPT-6 Luna: 54.7 (#24), o3: 47.3 (#57)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1448 | 1408 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 62.3% |
| DeepSWE | 66.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 58.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 81.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1583 | — |
| GSO | — | 8.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 52.4% |
| CadEval | — | 74% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 933.55 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-6 Luna: —, o3: 34.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 30.8% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 45.2% |
| OSWorld | — | 23% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1144 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 65.4% |
Reasoning Too close to call
GPT-6 Luna: 31.7 (#68), o3: 32.1 (#66)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1415 | 1402 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 6.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 68.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 60.8% |
| CritPt | — | 1.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 38% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 13.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 29% |
| DTBench | — | 84.8% |
| LMCA | — | 39.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.88 |
| ForecastBench | — | 62.5 |
Math o3 leads
GPT-6 Luna: 35.6 (#140), o3: 48.9 (#49)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1426 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 33.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 18.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge o3 leads
GPT-6 Luna: 40.1 (#110), o3: 54.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1458 | 1403 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 81.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 20.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | — | 14.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 75.3% |
Multimodal GPT-6 Luna leads
GPT-6 Luna: 42.0 (#27), o3: 40.7 (#35)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1214 |
| GeoBench | — | 74% |
| VPCT | — | 52% |
| Furniture Assembly | 44.2% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-6 Luna: 51.0 (#111), o3: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1390 | 1402 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1438 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1407 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1395 |
| LMArena French | — | 1430 |
| LMArena German | — | 1420 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1404 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1371 |
Instruction Following GPT-6 Luna leads
GPT-6 Luna: 74.7 (#85), o3: 73.0 (#122)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1414 | 1368 |
| IFEval | — | 86.9% |
Long Context o3 leads
GPT-6 Luna: 43.3 (#95), o3: 53.2 (#6)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1417 | 1372 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 88.9% |
| CL-bench | — | 17.8% |
Writing & Preference o3 leads
GPT-6 Luna: 58.4 (#115), o3: 63.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Luna | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1392 | 1410 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1357 | 1359 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1400 | 1405 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1676 |
| WildBench | — | 86.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6 Luna better than o3?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.4 to 45.1 on the Noometry Index. GPT-6 Luna costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6 Luna or o3?
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is GPT-6 Luna or o3 better for coding?
GPT-6 Luna scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.7 versus 47.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6 Luna does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6 Luna and o3 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6 Luna has 18 scored results on Noometry and o3 has 63.