Roboflow

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Grok 4.7 side-by-side.

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 65.8% to 40.4%.

Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 71.9% (#28 of 61) for Grok 4.7.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.015 per sample) and faster (13.2s vs 23.6s per sample).

Claude Haiku 5.5Grok 4.7

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026

PropertyClaude Haiku 5.5Grok 4.7
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateOct 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
ParametersundisclosedUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$2.00
Output $/1M$0.500$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.2%
71.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0005$0.015
Avg speed / sample13.23s23.55s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2
$0.0006
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)
68.2%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2
$0.0010
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
68.9%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3
$0.0003
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)
73.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3
$0.0004
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
83.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0002
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0003
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR (low)
90.1%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0
$0.0006
92.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.1 to 93.4
$0.018
OCR (high)
88.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6
$0.0009
93.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.1 to 93.8
$0.042
Data Extraction (low)
85.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6
$0.0002
84.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 87.6
$0.0060
Data Extraction (high)
87.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6
$0.0002
87.6%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0067
Reasoning (low)
68.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9
$0.0004
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
74.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5
$0.0006
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Grok 4.7: Overview

Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.

Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Haiku 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 71.9% (#28 of 61) for Grok 4.7. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 65.8% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.015. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.2s per inference against 23.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.