// head_to_head

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Perceptron Mk1

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

GPT-5.6 Luna and Perceptron Mk1 are priced within ~10% of each other.

Perceptron Mk1 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

openai

GPT-5.6 Luna

Blended / 1M
$0.450
Context
1.1M
Released
Jul 9, 2026
Overall score
73.6
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputprompt caching

perceptron

Perceptron Mk1

Blended / 1M
$0.487
Context
33K
Released
May 12, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningimage inputvideo input

Specs and pricing

MetricGPT-5.6 LunaPerceptron Mk1
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

73.6
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0911
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$0.450$0.487
Input price / 1M$0.200$0.150win
Output price / 1M$1.20win$1.50
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.020
Context window1.1Mwin33K
Max output tokens128Kwin8K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-5.6 Luna on top, Perceptron Mk1 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
48.4
Coding
82.9
Reasoning
85.6
Mathematics
87.2
Data analysis
78.0
Language
72.6
Instruction following
60.1

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadGPT-5.6 LunaPerceptron Mk1
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$131.04/mo$156.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$160.00/mo$210.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$155.20/mo$240.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$281.00/mo$262.50/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$530.00/mo$525.00/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You need to fit large documents in one call

GPT-5.6 Luna

Wider context window — 1.1M against 33K.

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Perceptron Mk1 FAQ

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Luna or Perceptron Mk1?

GPT-5.6 Luna and Perceptron Mk1 are priced within ~10% of each other. Perceptron Mk1 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is GPT-5.6 Luna cheaper than Perceptron Mk1?

They cost about the same. Both land near $0.450 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does GPT-5.6 Luna or Perceptron Mk1 have a bigger context window?

GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger context window: 1.1M for GPT-5.6 Luna against 33K for Perceptron Mk1. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do GPT-5.6 Luna and Perceptron Mk1 support prompt caching?

GPT-5.6 Luna publishes a cached-input rate of $0.020 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.200. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Perceptron Mk1, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.