Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.7% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#9 of 69 models). Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and was not run through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score.
Compare Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-6.1 Sol live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | No published price | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | No published price | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | Deprecated | 81.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0068 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 12.82s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 |
| Counting (low) | – | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | – | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 |
Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Overview
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.
OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.