GPT-5.6 Luna vs Llama 4 Scout
OpenAI · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick GPT-5.6 Luna for cheapest gpt-5.6 tier for high-volume drafting and automation or fast, affordable execution while keeping respectable coding. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; GPT-5.6 Luna if you want a managed API.
GPT-5.6 Luna (OpenAI) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. GPT-5.6 Luna is the budget, high-throughput GPT-5.6 tier — built for cheap, fast, large-volume work rather than deep long-context reasoning. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while GPT-5.6 Luna is API-metered at $1/$6 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
- ▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 10× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 1M (~1,500 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: GPT-5.6 Luna is the newer model by about 15 months (released July 9, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | GPT-5.6 Luna | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI (US) | Meta (US) |
| Released | July 9, 2026 | April 2025 |
| Context window | 1M (~1,500 pages) | 10M (~15,000 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $1/$6 per 1M tokens | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | No — API only | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, image, code | text, image, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | 15% |
Who wins what
Cheapest GPT-5.6 tier for high-volume drafting and automation
GPT-5.6 Luna
The budget, high-throughput GPT-5.6 tier — built for cheap, fast, large-volume work rather than deep long-context reasoning — and it is the newer of the two.
Fast, affordable execution while keeping respectable coding
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna lists fast, affordable execution while keeping respectable coding among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Same 1M context and programmatic tool calling as its siblings
GPT-5.6 Luna
Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 10× more than GPT-5.6 Luna's 1M in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
Open weights make this possible at all — GPT-5.6 Luna is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of GPT-5.6 Luna's $1/$6 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 10× larger than GPT-5.6 Luna's 1M, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts GPT-5.6 Luna, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Llama 4 Scout
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; GPT-5.6 Luna is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is cheapest gpt-5.6 tier for high-volume drafting and automation
→ GPT-5.6 Luna
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
That is its strongest area.
GPT-5.6 Luna: where it fits
The budget, high-throughput GPT-5.6 tier — built for cheap, fast, large-volume work rather than deep long-context reasoning. Released July 9, 2026 by OpenAI, it is built for cheapest GPT-5.6 tier for high-volume drafting and automation, fast, affordable execution while keeping respectable coding, same 1M context and programmatic tool calling as its siblings, and high-throughput simple agentic jobs.
Its trade-offs are real: weak long-context recall deep in its 1M window (MRCR far below Sol), and lowest raw capability of the three GPT-5.6 tiers; no open weights. At $1 in / $6 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. GPT-5.6 Luna gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both GPT-5.6 Luna and Llama 4 Scout without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Luna or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GPT-5.6 Luna leans toward cheapest gpt-5.6 tier for high-volume drafting and automation while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Luna or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while GPT-5.6 Luna is API-metered at $1/$6 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 1M, about 10× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both GPT-5.6 Luna and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GPT-5.6 Luna, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, GPT-5.6 Luna or Llama 4 Scout?
GPT-5.6 Luna — released July 9, 2026, about 15 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.