GPT-6 Luna vs Claude Haiku 4.5
Choose two or three models. Copy the URL to share your selection.
| Comparison | GPT-6 Lunagpt-6-luna | Claude Haiku 4.5claude-haiku-4-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Chat | Chat |
| Best for | Fast, low-cost replies and high-volume everyday tasks | Fast, low-cost replies and high-volume everyday tasks |
| TokenRex price | $0.10 in / $0.50 out per 1M tokens | $1.00 in / $5.00 out per 1M tokens |
| Cached input / 1M tokens | $0.01 per 1M tokens | $0.10 per 1M tokens |
| Cache write / 1M tokens | No extra fee | $1.25 per 1M tokens |
| Cached output | Not offered · standard output rate applies | Not offered · standard output rate applies |
| Web search | $10.00 per 1K searches | $10.00 per 1K searches |
| Market price | $0.10 in / $0.50 out per 1M tokens | $1.00 in / $5.00 out per 1M tokens |
| Context window (provider) | 1,050,000 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Input token limit (provider) | Within the context window | Within the context window |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 64,000 tokens |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 18, 2026 | Feb 2025 |
| Vendor input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Vendor output modalities | Text | Text |
| TokenRex endpoints | POST /v1/chat/completions | POST /v1/chat/completions · POST /v1/messages |
| TokenRex input | Text, Image/PDF content through the chat bridge | Text, Image/PDF content through the chat bridge |
| TokenRex output | Text | Text |
| Benchmarks | ||
| Benchmark evidence | 2 source-linked results | 1 source-linked results |
| FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) | 35.53% Cognition FrontierCode 1.1; GPT-6 Luna; medium effort; codex harness; Main subset (100 tasks). Published weighted rubric score (new_score × 100), not the all-or-nothing pass rate; solution-source violations score zero. Source field new_score=0.3553. Publisher evaluation, not a TokenRex measurement; provider effort configuration is not a guarantee of the API's fixed thinking budget. Cognition · FrontierCode 1.1 original leaderboard | — |
| FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) | 50.15% Cognition FrontierCode 1.1; GPT-6 Luna; medium effort; codex harness; Extended subset (150 tasks). Published weighted rubric score (new_score × 100), not the all-or-nothing pass rate; solution-source violations score zero. Source field new_score=0.5015. Publisher evaluation, not a TokenRex measurement; provider effort configuration is not a guarantee of the API's fixed thinking budget. Cognition · FrontierCode 1.1 original leaderboard | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 73.3% Anthropic methodology footnote: simple bash+file-edit scaffold, averaged over 50 trials, no test-time compute, 128K thinking budget, default sampling, full 500-problem set, with a prompt addendum instructing heavy tool use. Haiku 4.5's catalog default is Extended thinking (no explicit low/medium/high effort knob), so this is treated as the base/default-thinking configuration, not a stripped-down no-thinking run. Anthropic · Introducing Claude Haiku 4.5 |
No overall score, winner or cost-versus-score frontier is calculated without comparable, attributable benchmark evidence. Different test configurations appear separately. Vendor capabilities are distinct from TokenRex API support.
— means no published value or no matching capability. Provider token limits are not tested gateway guarantees; TokenRex media controls and response formats are listed separately.
GPT-6 Luna
Sources and verification
Provider specifications describe the upstream model, not a guarantee of every feature through TokenRex. Prices come from the enabled catalog; benchmark results belong to the exact tested model.
- Provider model specifications
Vendor-reported
Last checked - Cognition · FrontierCode 1.1 original leaderboard
Third-party report
Last checked
Research notes (1)
- Published provider limits; maximum-capacity requests have not been independently exercised through TokenRex. Thinking-level variants use the same provider model; reasoning and answer tokens share the output budget.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Sources and verification
Provider specifications describe the upstream model, not a guarantee of every feature through TokenRex. Prices come from the enabled catalog; benchmark results belong to the exact tested model.
- Provider model specifications
Vendor-reported
Last checked - Anthropic · Introducing Claude Haiku 4.5
Vendor-reported
Last checked
Research notes (1)
- Published provider limits; maximum-capacity requests have not been independently exercised through TokenRex. Thinking-level variants use the same provider model; reasoning and answer tokens share the output budget.
Popular comparisons
- GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Sol
- GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-6 Astra vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
- GPT-5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
- GPT-6 Luna vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- GPT-5 Mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
- GPT-5 Nano vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
- GPT-5.4 Mini vs Claude Haiku 4.5
- GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra
- GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- GPT-6 Astra vs GPT-6 Luna
- GPT-6 Luna vs Claude Haiku 4.5
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Sol
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-5.6 Terra vs Claude Sonnet 5
- GPT-5.6 Luna vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- GPT-5.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-5.5 vs GPT-5.4
- GPT-5.4 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- GPT-5.4 Nano vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
- GPT-5.2 vs GPT-5
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3 Flash
- GPT Image 2 vs Gemini 3 Pro Image
- GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst vs GPT Image 2
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Image vs GPT Image 1 Mini
- Gemini 3 Pro Image vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Image
- Veo 3.1 vs Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
- Veo 3.1 vs Veo 3.1 Fast
- GPT-4o Mini TTS vs Gemini 2.5 Flash TTS
- GPT-4o Transcribe vs Gemini 3.5 Transcribe
- GPT-4o Transcribe vs GPT-4o Mini Transcribe
- Text Embedding 3 Large vs Gemini Embedding 2
- Text Embedding 3 Small vs Gemini Embedding 001