Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-6.1 Terra

GPT-6.1 Terra and Claude Opus 4.8 score 85.8% vs 58.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #40 of 65 models), so GPT-6.1 Terra leads overall.

  • GPT-6.1 Terra wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (84.7% vs 38.6%).
  • GPT-6.1 Terra is about 1/6 of the cost: $0.0033 vs $0.021 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 is faster: 7.7s vs 10.1s per sample.

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-6.1 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Terra
Run to compare this model.

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-6.1 Terra on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Opus 4.8GPT-6.1 Terra
Object Detection
38.6
84.7
Reasoning
53.0
85.4
Counting
54.0
80.2
OCR
61.5
81.9
Identification
84.4
96.9

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-6.1 Terra Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated October 27, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 4.8GPT-6.1 Terra
OrganizationAnthropicOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$1.00
Output $/1M$25.00$5.00
Vision Tasks
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
58.3%
85.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.021$0.0033
Avg speed / sample7.66s10.05s
By task
Object Detection (low)
38.6%
$0.026
84.7%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.7 to 84.8
$0.0051
Object Detection (high)–
84.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.9
$0.0081
Counting (low)
54.0%
$0.0076
80.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0018
Counting (high)–
84.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 87.8
$0.0029
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0067
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
Identification (high)–
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
OCR (low)
61.5%
$0.025
81.9%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
53.0%
Transcription
70.8%
Structured JSON
82.4%
Text localization
24.2%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
77.6%
OCR (high)
62.1%
$0.038
84.4%
$0.0066
by category
Single value
54.8%
Transcription
67.0%
Structured JSON
83.5%
Text localization
23.6%
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
97.0%
Structured JSON
93.4%
Text localization
79.2%
Reasoning (low)
53.0%
$0.0078
85.4%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 86.8
$0.0016
Reasoning (high)
52.3%
$0.0078
87.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.4 to 88.1
$0.0023

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-6.1 Terra: Overview

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.

Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.

GPT-6.1 Terra

GPT-6.1 Terra is an OpenAI model released on October 26, 2026 for visual reasoning, computer use and writing. It accepts text and image inputs and produces text, with a 1,050,000-token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. OpenAI lists applications including matching product photographs to catalog entries, interpreting technical drawings and operating application screens.

The API exposes six reasoning effort settings: none, low, medium, high, xhigh and max. Medium is the default. The model supports structured outputs and tool calling through the Responses API. Vision Evals reports its Low and High results for text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection, using native OpenAI API inference. Terra is a proprietary model; its weights are not released.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Terra performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 85.8% (#2 of 65) against 58.3% (#40 of 65) for Claude Opus 4.8. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Terra leads with 84.7% against 38.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.021. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $5.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.7s per inference against 10.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.