Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 38.6% to 18.0%.
Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 66.8% (#19 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.
Grok 4.5 is cheaper ($0.0077 vs $0.016 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (5.2s vs 14.3s per sample).
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.8% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.016 | $0.0077 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.20s | 14.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 38.6% $0.026 | 18.0% $0.0100 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0076 | 55.4% $0.0065 |
| Identification | 75.0% $0.0067 | 78.1% $0.0045 |
| OCR | 93.8% $0.020 | 92.5% $0.0065 |
| Data Extraction | 87.6% $0.0076 | 83.5% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (low) | 53.0% $0.0078 | 58.3% $0.0076 |
| Reasoning (high) | 52.3% $0.0078 | 59.6% $0.011 |
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5: Overview
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. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. 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.
Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.
For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 4.8 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Claude Opus 4.8 averages 66.8% (#19 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5. 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, Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 38.6% against 18.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Grok 4.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0077 per sample against $0.016. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.5 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 Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.2s per inference against 14.3s. 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.