GPT-6 LunavsComposer 2.5
GPT-6 Luna | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1.05M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.10 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.50 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.01 | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 77% | 81% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 54% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 79.8% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 66.6% | — |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1059 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Sep 22 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
GPT-6 LunavsClaude Opus 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5.5GPT-6 LunavsGemini 3.8 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6 LunavsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6 LunavsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6 LunavsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-6 LunavsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 leads GPT-6 Luna on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Next.js Evals). Only GPT-6 Luna has a verified first-party API price: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2.5. Composer 2.5 shipped 127 days before GPT-6 Luna, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 81% vs GPT-6 Luna at 77%.