alt Hacker NewsChinese labs are so used to manipulating benchmarks to try to flatter inferior models that when they finally have one that's really pretty good I think the official announcement here undersells it.
That's pretty solid. Smarter and cheaper than Luna xhigh, not as smart but less expensive than Luna max. Smashes deepseek v4 flash, and even worse it matches v4 pro at a tiny fraction the cost. Roughly equivalent to sol medium, at a fraction the cost.
They should've just lead with real, up to date data, because it's good, not the silly old tactics like comparing to Opus 4.8 when 5.0 is out in many of their charts.
Congrats to them!
Replies
I don't know how anyone can actually use Luna max on ANY real workload. I've had Sol orchestrate a bunch of Luna agents, these agents were explicitly given small chunks of larger objectives and they still filled their entire context windows with just reasoning tokens, until compaction hit, and then reasoning again.
I've probably wasted a good 40% of my weekly usage on Luna Max agents just thinking and not writing a single line of code.
It's also better than Sol (at whatever effort) at designing pretty UIs. I have a Codex sub and I've been using this model for UI stuff.
Only 73K output tokens too. Anthropic should really be embarrassed with their Sonnet 5 price/performance.
> They should've just lead with real, up to date data, because it's good, not the silly old tactics like comparing to Opus 4.8 when 5.0 is out in many of their charts
It's what people know. Opus is just the common target.
> Smarter and cheaper than Luna xhigh, not as smart but less expensive than Luna max. Smashes deepseek v4 flash
The problem with this and DeepSWE is it goes for a very specific profile. I'm not convinced DeepSWE is any accurate in actual work. It's surely a different signal (compared to some that allow cheating) but it has its own issues, e.g. weak harness.
Luna is great at following instructions but bad instructions or anything not covered = death.
Deepseek is more analytical. Good for bug tracking.
GLM is a better all rounder in some ways. Better at creativity.
Maybe others have found otherwise, but I find the benchmarks drastically different to real world "feel" of a model, even within the same harness. I'm not sure if this just reflects personal interaction styles, or if it is indicative of benchmaxxing or unrealistic automated benchmarking methodology.
Opus 5 consistently comes at or near the top, but outputs constant unreadable jibberish. Meanwhile GPT 5.6 Luna medium tends to be rated pretty poor on agentic tasks compared to the Chinese lab open models, but I find the latter much more likely to lose track of their own behaviour during a long-horizon task or get stuck in a doom loop.
(This isn't a comment on GLM-5.3 Flash as I've not used it!)