GPT-5.5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Which one, when
gpt-5.6-luna is the cheaper half by a wide margin - $1 against $5 per million input, $6 against $30 on output, and $0.1 cache reads against $0.5, roughly 5x on each - while both carry the same 1050000-token context and 128000 max output tokens. gpt-5.5 keeps computer use and parallel tool calls, which gpt-5.6-luna does not list, so it stays the one to pin for tool-driven or screen-driven work; for ordinary text and code volume the newer model is 5x cheaper for the same window.
Benchmarks
41 measured on both.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.6 Luna | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5 | $1 | 5× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $30 | $6 | 5× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.1 | 5× |
| Cache write | no separate charge | no separate charge | - |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 64 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.6 Luna | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5-10m, up to 1h | 5-10m, up to 1h |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.6 Luna | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-12 | 2026-02 |
| Context window | 1.1M | 1.1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter | reasoning.effort | reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | reasoning.effort
| reasoning.effort
|
| Default | medium | medium |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GPT-5.5 · GPT-5.6 Luna
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
GPT-5.5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model do additional internal “thinking” before producing the final answer, which consumes more compute and billable tokens. Even if user volume and output length stayed the same, each request now costs more because the model is spending extra capacity to solve the problem. In short, we bought higher-quality answers, but the unit cost per answer increased enough to double the total LLM bill.
out 131 tok (+42 thinking) latency 2.9 s
GPT-5.6 Luna passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to use substantially more computational steps and generated tokens per request, even when the visible answer is similar. Because our provider charges based largely on token consumption and compute, that increased processing translated into roughly twice the cost. We can control the expense by reserving reasoning for complex tasks, setting token and effort limits, and monitoring cost per successful outcome.
out 146 tok (+60 thinking) latency 3.1 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GPT-5.5 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug was that `cur` and `best` were counting the number of equal *adjacent comparisons*, not the number of items in the run. A run of one item has length `1`, but the original code initialized both values to `0`, so single-element inputs returned `0`. Similarly, a run like `[2, 2, 2]` has length `3`, but only two adjacent equal comparisons, so the result was off by one. Also, `best` should be updated after every element is processed, not only inside the equality branch, so runs that continue through the final index are properly considered.
out 401 tok (+182 thinking) latency 5.9 s
GPT-5.6 Luna passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: best = max(best, cur) cur = 1 return max(best, cur) ``` The bug is that `cur` counts equal *transitions* rather than the number of items in the current run, so a single-element run returns `0` and a run of length `n` returns `n - 1`; additionally, `best` is only updated when a run is interrupted, so a run continuing through the final element is not finalized before returning. Initializing the current run to one item, resetting it to one after a change, and taking a final `max` fixes both issues.
out 356 tok (+161 thinking) latency 4.7 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GPT-5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 557 tok (+512 thinking) latency 6.7 s
GPT-5.6 Luna passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":null,"guidance":"Withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 227 tok (+181 thinking) latency 3.6 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GPT-5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we’re introducing Prompt Cache Routing, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompt prefixes and applies them across leading model providers. Teams can reduce latency, lower token spend, and keep application logic portable without rewriting requests for each vendor. Have you ever paid twice to send the same system instructions? With shared cache keys, provider-aware metadata, and automatic fallback handling, the gateway detects eligible prompt segments, reuses cached context, and records savings in your existing observability dashboards. Policies let admins set retention windows, data boundaries, and provider allowlists by workspace or environment. Prompt Cache Routing is available now in beta for Pro and Enterprise customers, with SDK support, Terraform resources, and clear migration guides included at launch worldwide.
out 859 tok (+700 thinking) latency 8.7 s
GPT-5.6 Luna passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing PromptCache, an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers, helping teams reduce latency, control spend, and deliver consistent results. How much faster could your applications respond when repeated prompts are served from a shared cache instead of being sent upstream? PromptCache supports provider-aware routing, configurable time-to-live policies, encrypted storage, cache invalidation, and usage analytics through one operational layer. It works with language-model providers while preserving your authentication, observability, and fallback workflows. Developers can enable caching by endpoint, model, tenant, or prompt pattern, then monitor hit rates and savings in real time. Built for production workloads, PromptCache gives platform teams controls for performance and cost without requiring application rewrites. […]
out 948 tok (+778 thinking) latency 8.0 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="gpt-5.5",
# model="gpt-5.6-luna", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "gpt-5.5",
// model: "gpt-5.6-luna", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "gpt-5.5",
# "model": "gpt-5.6-luna", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "gpt-5.5",
// Model: "gpt-5.6-luna", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("gpt-5.5")
// .model("gpt-5.6-luna") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.6 Luna?
GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($1 vs $5, 5.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GPT-5.5 against GPT-5.6 Luna without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 Luna support prompt caching?
Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.