“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” -John Wanamaker
This applies even more strongly to model choosing. I know for a fact that majority of my work doesn't require a very strong model, but separating the trivial and non-trivial tasks is a famously hard problem (if at all decidable).
Exactly. I haven't reached the "let 1000 agents bloom" mode yet, so currently I'm spending real headspace managing agents doing work, and that work is all important, so why "settle" for sub-frontier models for that work? Maybe I'll get there for non-coding work.
> Starting today, GPT‑5.6 Luna, our fastest and most affordable model, will cost 80% less,
I don't have the words.
I genuinely thought we were in a stage where we were plateauing and going in for 5-10% improvements over months. Seeing spikes like this makes me question about where the floor really is.
When model intelligence reliably hits 90%-95% of current day knowledge worker tasks, they are going to burn those weight to silicon and we will see another 10X improvement in price/performance frontier.
The dynamic GPU clusters will be used for the 5% of tasks, and pushing out the frontier. Also there will be a set of knowledge tasks that are not done today (because they are too difficult for most knowledge workers), that will start being done in the future.
Burning the weights into silicon would be many orders of magnitude increase, not just 10x. It's kind of crazy that this hockey stick the AI hype bros talk about seems more and more every day like it might be real
https://taalas.com/ has done it already for a wildly obsolete model. 14000 tokens per second.
https://chatjimmy.ai/ is their interactive. Tiny context, very dumb, but absurdly fast. Imagine this as a tool call for claude code for trivial changes - the tool call from the harness takes longer than the execution.
To be fair we don't really know in terms of prices what's real and what's just investor subsidised attempts at market capture at this point. It could well be OpenAI's attempt to drown Anthropic while they've got the halo product if they feel they've got deeper pockets.
I wouldn't be surprised if they still had some margins since cheaper models are much harder to nail the accurate sizes off, and you still pay 2x for 1M context window.
But if this is even at 400B size it's insanity those inference prices, maybe 10-20% margins, if it's higher I would like to know is it their own ships or maybe they have accurately sized the model to fit on exactly a B300?
Could be a lot of magical things we can only speculate, but from here there likely isn't another 60-70% margin, like I have heard people claim, I would definitely be willing to bet on that.
Could still be a healthy 10-30% margin. Especially with Terra.
Hard to believe numbers. I don't mean that as a critique, but literally I am so impressed. Even if the model is a few percent lower for performance but is 80+% cheaper than competitors and is a US company hosted on US based hyperscaler clouds this is kind of a no brainer. Hard for most businesses to justify otherwise.
Let's suppose each models was subsidized at 70%, so that we only pay 30% of the cost. They would loose much more money per token on the more powerful models. It's in their interest to encourage the use of the less expensive models. Let's say they increase Luna subsidies at 90%. They would still "save" relative to the use of the more expensive models.
They have no (other) equivalent to nano, so it makes sense that it’s much cheaper now. It may have been better, but it was also hell of a lot more expensive.
Vera Rubin will be hitting racks very soon, and this is purported to have a 10x improvement in token throughput per megawatt. Of course, old chips don't get replaced with new chips overnight, but I don't think we're anywhere near the floor yet.
By benchmarks, which sadly is a poor measure. Yes Luna is a good model under certain circumstances. Whether it is great for general usage is another story. Sonnet is definitely better when prompts are more vague and it needs to decide things. Luna generally sticks to things very strictly and goes off in bad ways.
Yes but there is a big, big market for subagents to consume lots of tokens cheaply and condense information up to parent agents. Luna would not be my choice for planning. But an explorer to comb through a codebase to find relevant parts? Or for enterprise retrieval, where it needs to search across many different types of data to see where to focus efforts for a smarter model? Or to wake up periodically to evaluate some conditions and determine if a bigger model should be spun up? Definitely.
I've previously found flash (for all the hate it gets) to be good for these kinds of things. Haiku was fine but it's ancient.
Sonnet and Haiku were already in an awkward spot, likely by design.
Anthropic's big marketing push this year has been entirely focused on getting people to use Opus via a Claude Code subscription, to the point that Sonnet is almost viewed as the poor man's alternative, and from what I've seen, almost nobody uses it.
Actually, here's an interesting project for all the vibe coders looking for their next front page post: scrape a ton of commits from GitHub with Co-Authored-By: Claude and figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is. I'm willing to bet it's less than 10% Sonnet.
>figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is.
This may be misleading, since I suspect many are using a blend through sub-agents. I tend to bias for Fable to orchestrate and Opus for implementation via sub-agents.
Opus 5 is not strong enough as the top-of-stack model, and feels idiotic after a week or two of heavy Fable usage, to the point where I'm paying for Usage Credits to keep using Fable rather than having to slum it with Opus.
I don't see how this follows. The cost of nails has fallen by 95% over the last century. It's because the cost of manufacturing has fallen. Not because they are selling the information of nail consumers.
Tokens are not normal software, because they have marginal cost, and I think people who are used to software economics really struggle with this. With token generation there really can be manufacturing cost efficiencies where one producer is just straight up better at serving product at a lower marginal cost.
That’s ridiculous. Every major AI lab is compute constrained. That’s exactly why nvidia is worth trillions today. If OpenAI had a single extra GPU they’d be using it to run another training cycle or experiment for their next model.
sama literally just said they wish they had bought more. the price drops are almost certainly due to good old fashioned hardware innovation (wafer scale with cerebras) and optimizing hardware development based on model architecture and inference costs. other inference providers will try to do the same if they can.
Making Luna, which was already very cheap and extremely capable, 5x cheaper is crazy. I use Sol at work but Luna at home, and while there's definitely a difference, it doesn't feel like night-and-day. After a year of ever-increasing prices it suddenly feels (between this, Kimi K3, GLM 5.2) that prices are falling again.
It's cheaper currently on many of the inference providers.
Personally, I'm having surprisingly good results with DeepSeek 4 Pro at home, which is very good value for money: it's not as good as Claude / GPT 5.6 (I have Co-pilot license at work), but it's still really useful for code reviews, validating thoughts, and especially designing / writing unit tests for new (and old before refactoring) functionality.
And it's very cheap per task. (Flash is even cheaper, but I've had issues with that on more complex tasks where it starts forgetting things and arguing with itself "but wait, let me read the function again").
> The kernel work helped reduce the end-to-end cost of serving the model by 20%, while its experiments increased token-generation efficiency by more than 15%.
If the cost of serving GPT-5.6 just dropped by 20%, does that add up to literally billions of dollars in savings per month?
We know Anthropic spend $1.25 billion renting inference capacity from SpaceX (in two Colossus datacenters) from the SpaceX IPO, but we don't know how much of Anthropic's inference capacity that is (presumably a small fraction, since they were operating on top of AWS and other providers before the SpaceX deal.)
I've not seen any numbers that hint at OpenAI's per-month inference bill, but surely that has to be in the multiple billions of dollars as well.
lots of places, actually. not everyone wants to be attached to the Silicon Valley culture, and that line alone will guarantee practically any workplace. that person is going to find out what work-life balance is :)
In this case, and I don't mean this critically, I guess it would technically be, "Instructed model to find efficiencies... reducing inference cost by 20% saving company x billion dollars per month."
I have no doubt that further work was required to enable this, but it's still very cool to be possible to say that.
This feels like the dialup->broadband transition to me.
I was already a huge proponent of Luna for things like deep research. Being able to run 5x more for the same cost is simply bananas. We are already running 10 parallel agents for hypothesis generation. I cannot imagine 50. The statistics become much more interesting & powerful when you can run so many samples of the exact same prompt+model without breaking the bank.
Very interesting. Can you share more about your hypothesis/research pipeline? I have been using Sol for those types of task because I figured you'd need more reasoning for getting good ideas, but maybe quantity > quality at a certain point?
Anything related to reading and interpreting the environment seems to always benefit from the addition of more agents to the search party, assuming you have some rational way to synthesize their results.
Taking actions that mutate the environment is a different story. I think this is where you run into diminishing returns very quickly. You generally want one strong agent to act given the results of all the searching that was done. If the plan is clear, you don't need a genius model to execute it.
Smaller models are great if you are doing targeted changes in existing codebases. Don’t expect to use it for creating complex architecture from scratch or do major refactors. The larger the context, the greater the drop off will be.
This is one of the things OpenAI has been focused on for an year or so that led to the doomed autoswitcher in ChatGPT .com (switching models based on estimated task complexity) that was quickly reverted
Whereas Google with Gemini 3.x, Anthropic with Fable etc are happy to just go for 'big model with dense params'
It's hard to guess from the outside of course but just this kind of talking points focus on GPU efficacy is what we see from OpenAI and Chinese open source labs more often than from Anthropic or Google Deepmind and this benchmark chart seems to concur
Didn't expect that. Luna pricing is crazy now. I don't think there is anything on the market that competes at this price-performance point.
For our production app, OpenAI clearly is the best provider now. Their API is very reliable and has many nice features. The price-performance of the model lineup is incredible. We used open weights model via Fireworks for a long time (e.g. Kimi K2.5). Fireworks is a great provider but we still ran into issues here and there (Same with Anthropic and Google). OpenAI just works, is fast and in my view has a better price-performance ratio across almost all levels of intelligence.
80% less for Luna is absolutely crazy, in my opinion we may reach a point in the next year where powerful models on the API could potentially be cheaper than subscriptions. Compute just keeps decreasing in price.
What are your use case for these? I’m manly interested in coding where more capability is better - give me a 10x model at 10x the price and I’ll take it. A worse model at very low cost has no appeal to me. At-least not for coding. Translation maybe? OCR?
While I can't deny this is a huge technological result, and it's laudable they reduced the price because of it, 80% is really a lot. I can't help but wonder, is this because of the model's capabilities, or was the initial system just really sloppy? The public will probably never know the details
I would pay significantly more to use these models if there was a legal contract that guaranteed they weren't ever terfing them and some way to prove that.
Might just resub. Will experiment with Luna next sessions.
5 h window is not working very well for me. But if I can drop down to Luna at 20-30 % left and comfortably ride out the wave then.. that might just work.
This is awesome. I’ve recently set up my opencode to use 5.6 terra for my main agent, who delegates work to a 5.6 Luna coder agent. So far it seems to work well, and reduce costs a lot. With this price reduction, it will work a whole lot better. Perhaps I can get my github copilot quota to last the whole month now.
Seems like they're working to destroy the local LLM argument. Right now Haiku is $1/$5 in/out. You can grind out $12,000 worth of haiku (or arguably, sonnet) class tokens in about 5 months on a Blackwell RTX 6000 96GB especially if using concurrency. BUT, but, if you use a g6e.xlarge on aws it's now more expensive than buying tokens from OpenAI @ $0.20/$1.20. It also destroys "the Mac Mini argument", pushing the ROI to ~4 years.
With this new price change, Terra does look pretty Pareto’ed by Luna.
On agentic coding, pairing Sol Medium for architecting with Luna High for coding does kinda make sense. But beware that architecting can be very read-heavy, and Sol is a bit read-pricey compared to Terra.
Experienced similar between 5.4-mini vs 5.6-luna in our own pipelines but after spending some time on prompt optimization and testing out various reasoning effort levels 5.6-luna was well worth it. Did you just replace model selection while keeping everything else in place or spend some time on evaling with newer prompts etc?
No we kept prompts as is, just swapped model. The prompt is already quite optimized for the task.
How would updating it possibly make a more intelligent model spend less tokens than a less intelligent model? Care to elaborate?
> GPT‑5.6 Luna, our fastest and most affordable model, will cost 80% less
Looks like the Chinese models are really making a dent. Having 3 different price categories with the "most affordable" one still costing more than GLM 5.2 never made sense.
I thought the chinese models were cheaper per token, but about the same or more expensive on tasks because they used more tokens for reasoning. Cutting even further, seems like a really big leap.
It all comes back to electricity cost. China has cheaper electricity so as long as China keeps pace there is no way for American companies to undercut them. Each boolean operation in China is cheaper than the one in America.
> China: Household rates average around $0.08 / kWh (¥0.53/kWh).
vs
> US: Household rates average around $0.16 / kWh, though regional variation is massive—ranging from ~$0.10/kWh in low-cost states (like Washington or Louisiana) to $0.30–$0.45+/kWh in high-cost areas like California or Hawaii.
Model segmentation & distillation like this that asks the consumers to pick exactly which version of the algorithm will solve their problem is evidence for lack of intelligence instead of its presence.
You really really don’t need to pick. Just use Sol on high. That’s my daily driver and I don’t touch the model picker at all.
Now, if cost is your concern, then that’s a problem in all of computing. Hence why I’m sending you short plain text messages using an iPhone with a many-core CPU and gigabytes of RAM.
it is really hard to know upfront if you have fuzzy task. sometimes i would choose a cheaper model and it will spin and spin with bad outputs ending up costing more had i chosen a more capable model.
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” -John Wanamaker
This applies even more strongly to model choosing. I know for a fact that majority of my work doesn't require a very strong model, but separating the trivial and non-trivial tasks is a famously hard problem (if at all decidable).
Exactly. I haven't reached the "let 1000 agents bloom" mode yet, so currently I'm spending real headspace managing agents doing work, and that work is all important, so why "settle" for sub-frontier models for that work? Maybe I'll get there for non-coding work.
> separating the trivial and non-trivial tasks is a famously hard problem (if at all decidable).
Famously, this is also a problem for human coders in sprint planning.
Cosmically apt username given the substance of this comment.
You just need a very strong frontier model to do triage of your tasks.
/s
> Starting today, GPT‑5.6 Luna, our fastest and most affordable model, will cost 80% less,
I don't have the words.
I genuinely thought we were in a stage where we were plateauing and going in for 5-10% improvements over months. Seeing spikes like this makes me question about where the floor really is.
When model intelligence reliably hits 90%-95% of current day knowledge worker tasks, they are going to burn those weight to silicon and we will see another 10X improvement in price/performance frontier.
The dynamic GPU clusters will be used for the 5% of tasks, and pushing out the frontier. Also there will be a set of knowledge tasks that are not done today (because they are too difficult for most knowledge workers), that will start being done in the future.
> When model intelligence reliably hits 90%-95% of current day knowledge worker tasks, they are going to burn those weight to silicon
Google is already working on a similar idea but more "flexible".
Burning the weights into silicon would be many orders of magnitude increase, not just 10x. It's kind of crazy that this hockey stick the AI hype bros talk about seems more and more every day like it might be real
https://taalas.com/ has done it already for a wildly obsolete model. 14000 tokens per second.
https://chatjimmy.ai/ is their interactive. Tiny context, very dumb, but absurdly fast. Imagine this as a tool call for claude code for trivial changes - the tool call from the harness takes longer than the execution.
To be fair we don't really know in terms of prices what's real and what's just investor subsidised attempts at market capture at this point. It could well be OpenAI's attempt to drown Anthropic while they've got the halo product if they feel they've got deeper pockets.
Enterprises implemented spending caps and inference providers are lowering prices. Seems they are jockeying for market share.
I wouldn't be surprised if they still had some margins since cheaper models are much harder to nail the accurate sizes off, and you still pay 2x for 1M context window.
But if this is even at 400B size it's insanity those inference prices, maybe 10-20% margins, if it's higher I would like to know is it their own ships or maybe they have accurately sized the model to fit on exactly a B300?
Could be a lot of magical things we can only speculate, but from here there likely isn't another 60-70% margin, like I have heard people claim, I would definitely be willing to bet on that.
Could still be a healthy 10-30% margin. Especially with Terra.
We can guess based on the decisions of other inference providers who serve these models.
Do you mean if other providers will cut their prices in turn?
Hard to believe numbers. I don't mean that as a critique, but literally I am so impressed. Even if the model is a few percent lower for performance but is 80+% cheaper than competitors and is a US company hosted on US based hyperscaler clouds this is kind of a no brainer. Hard for most businesses to justify otherwise.
This is exactly the model that DeepSeek V4 Flash followed, and it's been insanely successful as a result, even though it's not frontier.
it's 80% less cost, not 80% in efficiency gains, could be that Luna was overpriced to begin with, we don't have much info on the models themselves.
Assuming the efficiency gains are real, I feel like something has to give, maybe worse quality due to aggressive quantization/kv cache compression?
Let's suppose each models was subsidized at 70%, so that we only pay 30% of the cost. They would loose much more money per token on the more powerful models. It's in their interest to encourage the use of the less expensive models. Let's say they increase Luna subsidies at 90%. They would still "save" relative to the use of the more expensive models.
Been using OpenAI models since ada/babbage/curie/davinci and at least from my own experience, their APIs feel the same.
If you use Codex it's different, the harness has a lot to do with it and there's definitely been changes including recently.
Something can be overpriced and still lose money.
They have no (other) equivalent to nano, so it makes sense that it’s much cheaper now. It may have been better, but it was also hell of a lot more expensive.
there is a ton of downward price pressure from Chinese open weight models
Totally possible that humans aren't actually that intelligent.
As well as the existing intelligence being swayed by emotions, hormones, circadian rhythms, stress, peer pressure, propaganda, and survival instincts.
Vera Rubin will be hitting racks very soon, and this is purported to have a 10x improvement in token throughput per megawatt. Of course, old chips don't get replaced with new chips overnight, but I don't think we're anywhere near the floor yet.
This is gonna put Sonnet 5 in a really awkward spot.
Luna is comparable to Haiku, not Sonnet.
Totally untrue. Luna and Sonnet 5 are very comparable: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence
Luna is an extremely strong model.
> Luna is an extremely strong model.
By benchmarks, which sadly is a poor measure. Yes Luna is a good model under certain circumstances. Whether it is great for general usage is another story. Sonnet is definitely better when prompts are more vague and it needs to decide things. Luna generally sticks to things very strictly and goes off in bad ways.
Yes but there is a big, big market for subagents to consume lots of tokens cheaply and condense information up to parent agents. Luna would not be my choice for planning. But an explorer to comb through a codebase to find relevant parts? Or for enterprise retrieval, where it needs to search across many different types of data to see where to focus efforts for a smarter model? Or to wake up periodically to evaluate some conditions and determine if a bigger model should be spun up? Definitely.
I've previously found flash (for all the hate it gets) to be good for these kinds of things. Haiku was fine but it's ancient.
Anthropic basically downgraded all their tiers when they released Mythos, no nah, Sonnet 5 is the successor to Haiku 4.x
I use sonnet as a smart grep and haiku never and that’s only when I have to use Anthropic at all
Sonnet and Haiku were already in an awkward spot, likely by design.
Anthropic's big marketing push this year has been entirely focused on getting people to use Opus via a Claude Code subscription, to the point that Sonnet is almost viewed as the poor man's alternative, and from what I've seen, almost nobody uses it.
Actually, here's an interesting project for all the vibe coders looking for their next front page post: scrape a ton of commits from GitHub with Co-Authored-By: Claude and figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is. I'm willing to bet it's less than 10% Sonnet.
>figure out what the percentage split between Opus/Fable/Sonnet is.
This may be misleading, since I suspect many are using a blend through sub-agents. I tend to bias for Fable to orchestrate and Opus for implementation via sub-agents.
Opus 5 is not strong enough as the top-of-stack model, and feels idiotic after a week or two of heavy Fable usage, to the point where I'm paying for Usage Credits to keep using Fable rather than having to slum it with Opus.
According to https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/, Luna at Max at it's previous cost was comparable in both performance and cost to Sol at High.
With an 80% reduction in cost that becomes a ridiculous outlier in efficiency.
this type of thing usually means you are the product
I don't see how this follows. The cost of nails has fallen by 95% over the last century. It's because the cost of manufacturing has fallen. Not because they are selling the information of nail consumers.
Tokens are not normal software, because they have marginal cost, and I think people who are used to software economics really struggle with this. With token generation there really can be manufacturing cost efficiencies where one producer is just straight up better at serving product at a lower marginal cost.
> Seeing spikes like this makes me question about where the floor really is.
You mean they increased the price and then cut it back and now it is amazing?
Luna had a price hike vs mini (its previous replacement). The cut now just puts it back in that ball park.
Not that this isn't good news, but what's impressive?
They over purchased hardware.
This is very likely priced below recovering the cost of the hardware but still above operating expenses.
What evidence is there?
I have no idea either way but one thing that detracts from these threads is folks claiming things as a fact without evidence.
That’s ridiculous. Every major AI lab is compute constrained. That’s exactly why nvidia is worth trillions today. If OpenAI had a single extra GPU they’d be using it to run another training cycle or experiment for their next model.
sama literally just said they wish they had bought more. the price drops are almost certainly due to good old fashioned hardware innovation (wafer scale with cerebras) and optimizing hardware development based on model architecture and inference costs. other inference providers will try to do the same if they can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDB5beon4DY&t=4m20s
Making Luna, which was already very cheap and extremely capable, 5x cheaper is crazy. I use Sol at work but Luna at home, and while there's definitely a difference, it doesn't feel like night-and-day. After a year of ever-increasing prices it suddenly feels (between this, Kimi K3, GLM 5.2) that prices are falling again.
> Sol vs Luna
> it doesn't feel like night-and-day.
I see what you did there. :)
Good observation! Kudos
is kimi that cheap? it's a very expensive model
It's cheaper currently on many of the inference providers.
Personally, I'm having surprisingly good results with DeepSeek 4 Pro at home, which is very good value for money: it's not as good as Claude / GPT 5.6 (I have Co-pilot license at work), but it's still really useful for code reviews, validating thoughts, and especially designing / writing unit tests for new (and old before refactoring) functionality.
And it's very cheap per task. (Flash is even cheaper, but I've had issues with that on more complex tasks where it starts forgetting things and arguing with itself "but wait, let me read the function again").
Its just a matter of time at this point.These companies are working day and night to capture the market.
depends on what you are doing. if you are doing verifiable tasks like fixing bugs then any model would do as long as you write the right verification.
> The kernel work helped reduce the end-to-end cost of serving the model by 20%, while its experiments increased token-generation efficiency by more than 15%.
If the cost of serving GPT-5.6 just dropped by 20%, does that add up to literally billions of dollars in savings per month?
We know Anthropic spend $1.25 billion renting inference capacity from SpaceX (in two Colossus datacenters) from the SpaceX IPO, but we don't know how much of Anthropic's inference capacity that is (presumably a small fraction, since they were operating on top of AWS and other providers before the SpaceX deal.)
I've not seen any numbers that hint at OpenAI's per-month inference bill, but surely that has to be in the multiple billions of dollars as well.
So 20% is a really, really big deal.
~2 years ago gemini2.5 helped write better kernes for itself and (only) reached 1% efficiency gains. Today we're at 20%.
imagine writing that on your resume
> reduced inference cost by 20 percent saving company x billion dollars per month
Where are you going to apply to with that resume that’s a step up from your current job though?
The other place, but for more money
lots of places, actually. not everyone wants to be attached to the Silicon Valley culture, and that line alone will guarantee practically any workplace. that person is going to find out what work-life balance is :)
Sure, but those places don’t need such lofty resumes to begin with.
In this case, and I don't mean this critically, I guess it would technically be, "Instructed model to find efficiencies... reducing inference cost by 20% saving company x billion dollars per month."
I have no doubt that further work was required to enable this, but it's still very cool to be possible to say that.
I think they meant that GPT-5.6-Sol can write that on its resume.
Does the model get the credit for its promo packet then? :^)
Contributed to. Can't be some IC who made a few nice PRs
This feels like the dialup->broadband transition to me.
I was already a huge proponent of Luna for things like deep research. Being able to run 5x more for the same cost is simply bananas. We are already running 10 parallel agents for hypothesis generation. I cannot imagine 50. The statistics become much more interesting & powerful when you can run so many samples of the exact same prompt+model without breaking the bank.
Very interesting. Can you share more about your hypothesis/research pipeline? I have been using Sol for those types of task because I figured you'd need more reasoning for getting good ideas, but maybe quantity > quality at a certain point?
How do you run 'deep research'?
Deep research is basically a LLM with web search, and a "work really hard" goal-orientated prompt, and some output formatting suggestions.
Do you have a sense of which tasks benefit from more agents and which don't?
Anything related to reading and interpreting the environment seems to always benefit from the addition of more agents to the search party, assuming you have some rational way to synthesize their results.
Taking actions that mutate the environment is a different story. I think this is where you run into diminishing returns very quickly. You generally want one strong agent to act given the results of all the searching that was done. If the plan is clear, you don't need a genius model to execute it.
I definitely think you want the genius model to synthesize everything that rolls up to them.
I generally just check the Price/Performance graph on Openrouter: https://openrouter.ai/rankings#performance#benchmarks. Activate the "Show Pareto" toggle on the right.
I was still using GLM-5.2 in my personal projects, but this just made Luna a very easy choice.
The official doc says, Luna = Previous Nano models, kind of. Is it really good at coding?
Depends on the reasoning effort, see https://deepswe.datacurve.ai (add Luna via model selection drop down, if it's not shown by default)
Smaller models are great if you are doing targeted changes in existing codebases. Don’t expect to use it for creating complex architecture from scratch or do major refactors. The larger the context, the greater the drop off will be.
According to the link I mentioned above it's roughly as good as GPT-5.4. Haven't tried it in practice yet.
I bet it must be better in some contexts and worse in others.
80% price cut for luna is a very aggressive pricing move
makes it by far the best choice for most workloads that do not need bleeding edge intelligence (reminder: luna can be comparable to opus 5!)
Luna is meant to compete with Haiku. What tasks are you seeing it equal Opus on?
Per Artificial Analysis:
- Haiku: 30 points
- Luna Medium/High/Xhigh/Max: 38/46/49/51 points
That's a massive difference:
- 30 points is Gemma 4 31B territory
- 50 points is GLM-5.2 (744B) territory.
luna is way better than haiku 4.5
I use Luna a lot (over 1T tokens since it came out) and I'd rank Luna (high/xhigh) on par with Sonnet 5, without hesitation.
Does that also increase the token count in their subscription like ChatGPT GO?
"too cheap to meter" and Luna is still more expensive than deepseek-v4 pro
This is one of the things OpenAI has been focused on for an year or so that led to the doomed autoswitcher in ChatGPT .com (switching models based on estimated task complexity) that was quickly reverted
Whereas Google with Gemini 3.x, Anthropic with Fable etc are happy to just go for 'big model with dense params'
It's hard to guess from the outside of course but just this kind of talking points focus on GPU efficacy is what we see from OpenAI and Chinese open source labs more often than from Anthropic or Google Deepmind and this benchmark chart seems to concur
Didn't expect that. Luna pricing is crazy now. I don't think there is anything on the market that competes at this price-performance point.
For our production app, OpenAI clearly is the best provider now. Their API is very reliable and has many nice features. The price-performance of the model lineup is incredible. We used open weights model via Fireworks for a long time (e.g. Kimi K2.5). Fireworks is a great provider but we still ran into issues here and there (Same with Anthropic and Google). OpenAI just works, is fast and in my view has a better price-performance ratio across almost all levels of intelligence.
OpenAI's APIs are extremely reliable for sure. I don't even remember when the last incident or downtime was.
80% less for Luna is absolutely crazy, in my opinion we may reach a point in the next year where powerful models on the API could potentially be cheaper than subscriptions. Compute just keeps decreasing in price.
What are your use case for these? I’m manly interested in coding where more capability is better - give me a 10x model at 10x the price and I’ll take it. A worse model at very low cost has no appeal to me. At-least not for coding. Translation maybe? OCR?
Translation, moderation, classification, guardrails, etc..
While I can't deny this is a huge technological result, and it's laudable they reduced the price because of it, 80% is really a lot. I can't help but wonder, is this because of the model's capabilities, or was the initial system just really sloppy? The public will probably never know the details
It says Luna is fastest, but doesn't it take way more steps to get the same job done?
https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ - (See the Agent Steps view)
Or is the output speed so much higher that it cancels out?
I don't see a lot of benchmarks that record actual time. But on AA, Sol on Low beats Luna on High for Time Per Task.
I would pay significantly more to use these models if there was a legal contract that guaranteed they weren't ever terfing them and some way to prove that.
Those prices on luna are killer.
Haiku was already in a ditch.
But this is coming straight for the jugular of a ton of models on openrouter.
Might just resub. Will experiment with Luna next sessions. 5 h window is not working very well for me. But if I can drop down to Luna at 20-30 % left and comfortably ride out the wave then.. that might just work.
They got rid of the 5hr quota, it's just weekly quotas now.
They're supposed to bring 5h today.
This is awesome. I’ve recently set up my opencode to use 5.6 terra for my main agent, who delegates work to a 5.6 Luna coder agent. So far it seems to work well, and reduce costs a lot. With this price reduction, it will work a whole lot better. Perhaps I can get my github copilot quota to last the whole month now.
Looks like I might have a reason to use something other than Deepseek V4 Flash.
I was curious so I photoshopped DSV4 Flash into the graph:
https://files.catbox.moe/csxl32.png
(2 cents to run AA index, score 40)
Looks like OpenAI broke the pareto frontier on the trust-me-bro benchmarks!
(One has to wonder if they used any of the neat tricks from the DSV4 paper :)
It would appear that rolling my own Anthropic-free harness / serving stack with a closed-weight carve out for Codex models is an absolute win.
Seems like they cut the tiers(GPT-5.6 Luna) where GLM and Kimi compete and still held margin for their frontier models
Basically lunar at extra level can cover all use cases scenarios other than those requiring opus up. Goodbye sonnet and haiku
This is awesome. Luna is a pretty great model on xhigh.
Seems like they're working to destroy the local LLM argument. Right now Haiku is $1/$5 in/out. You can grind out $12,000 worth of haiku (or arguably, sonnet) class tokens in about 5 months on a Blackwell RTX 6000 96GB especially if using concurrency. BUT, but, if you use a g6e.xlarge on aws it's now more expensive than buying tokens from OpenAI @ $0.20/$1.20. It also destroys "the Mac Mini argument", pushing the ROI to ~4 years.
Not sure who would use Terra anymore. Pair Luna High/Xhigh with Sol Medium and that's your power stack
Sounds reasonable. Is there a good benchmark on which make this decision?
I maintain this meta-benchmark leaderboard: https://metabench.organisons.com/
With this new price change, Terra does look pretty Pareto’ed by Luna.
On agentic coding, pairing Sol Medium for architecting with Luna High for coding does kinda make sense. But beware that architecting can be very read-heavy, and Sol is a bit read-pricey compared to Terra.
Sol as main agent, Luna for coding?
We swapped an internal system from gpt-5-mini to gpt-5.6-luna and saw no benefit but 4x cost. Sufficed to say: we swapped back to gpt-5-mini.
Experienced similar between 5.4-mini vs 5.6-luna in our own pipelines but after spending some time on prompt optimization and testing out various reasoning effort levels 5.6-luna was well worth it. Did you just replace model selection while keeping everything else in place or spend some time on evaling with newer prompts etc?
No we kept prompts as is, just swapped model. The prompt is already quite optimized for the task. How would updating it possibly make a more intelligent model spend less tokens than a less intelligent model? Care to elaborate?
> GPT‑5.6 Luna, our fastest and most affordable model, will cost 80% less
Looks like the Chinese models are really making a dent. Having 3 different price categories with the "most affordable" one still costing more than GLM 5.2 never made sense.
I thought the chinese models were cheaper per token, but about the same or more expensive on tasks because they used more tokens for reasoning. Cutting even further, seems like a really big leap.
It all comes back to electricity cost. China has cheaper electricity so as long as China keeps pace there is no way for American companies to undercut them. Each boolean operation in China is cheaper than the one in America.
> China: Household rates average around $0.08 / kWh (¥0.53/kWh).
vs
> US: Household rates average around $0.16 / kWh, though regional variation is massive—ranging from ~$0.10/kWh in low-cost states (like Washington or Louisiana) to $0.30–$0.45+/kWh in high-cost areas like California or Hawaii.
This doesn't seem correct.
Estimated final electricity price for large industrial customers in energy-intensive industries:
USA 50 USD/MWh
China 68 USD/MWh
https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2026/prices
Model segmentation & distillation like this that asks the consumers to pick exactly which version of the algorithm will solve their problem is evidence for lack of intelligence instead of its presence.
You really really don’t need to pick. Just use Sol on high. That’s my daily driver and I don’t touch the model picker at all.
Now, if cost is your concern, then that’s a problem in all of computing. Hence why I’m sending you short plain text messages using an iPhone with a many-core CPU and gigabytes of RAM.
it is really hard to know upfront if you have fuzzy task. sometimes i would choose a cheaper model and it will spin and spin with bad outputs ending up costing more had i chosen a more capable model.
there is mixture of experts which is also another routing. So, simple change in prompt can be a big difference.
They don't mention Grok at all.
Don Draper in the elevator meme?
Of course. All comparison is with what makes them look good.
They also don’t mention a hundred other models.
What would they say about Grok?