Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.6 Terra side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Object Detection, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Terra 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Terra: Overview
Claude Opus 4.6 is the flagship large language model from Anthropic, released on 2026-02-05 for advanced reasoning, complex coding, and enterprise agent workflows. It supports text and image inputs via API, offers a 200K-token standard context window with a 1M-token beta option, and enables outputs up to 128K tokens, with adaptive reasoning and context compaction for sustained tasks.
As of 2026-02-17, Anthropic also released Claude Sonnet 4.6, extending the 1M-token context window to a broader tier. Opus remains positioned for maximum depth and benchmark performance, while Sonnet 4.6 brings long-context capability to more cost- and latency-sensitive production use cases.
GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Terra scores 84.3%, matching Claude Fable 5 on that benchmark. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.
GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Terra Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $2.50 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $15.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 64.18% | |
| Avg Response Time | 23.35s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 130 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 82.53% | |
| Avg Response Time | 5.05s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 736 | |
| Median output tokens | 99 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0062 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 85.9%(85/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 70%(7/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 76.7%(46/60) | |
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