Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Grok 4
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Grok 4 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Grok 4 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Grok 4: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.
The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.
Grok 4, released by xAI on July 9, 2025, is the fourth-generation model in the Grok family and the most advanced to date. It is multimodal, supporting text, vision, tool use, and real-time web search, with a reported 256,000-token context window for long-form reasoning and document analysis. Its training data extends through November 2024, making it the most up-to-date Grok model at launch.
The lineup includes Grok 4 Generalist for broad tasks, Grok 4 Heavy for higher-capacity reasoning, and Grok 4 Code optimized for programming and debugging. A notable feature is its always-on “Think” mode, designed for deeper multi-step reasoning. While xAI has not disclosed parameter counts, Grok 4 is positioned to compete with frontier models like GPT-5 and Claude 4, balancing real-time knowledge via web integration with structured tool use. It is best suited for coding, complex reasoning, and multimodal AI assistants.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Grok 4 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | xAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Jul 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 256K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 52.24% |
| Avg Response Time | 5.67s | 85.24s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 182 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0092 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 44.4%(4/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 57.1%(8/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 52.6%(10/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 67.25% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | |
| Median output tokens | 115 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology