Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 74.4%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 61) against 85.5% (#4 of 61) for GPT-6.1 Sol.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper ($0.0061 vs $0.014 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (12.8s vs 14.3s per sample).
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.5% | 85.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.014 | $0.0061 |
| Avg speed / sample | 12.76s | 14.31s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8 | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8 | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 87.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2 | 92.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5 |
| OCR (high) | 87.2% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8 | 91.7% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 88.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 90.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7 |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Overview
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
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.
On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 61) against 85.5% (#4 of 61) for GPT-6.1 Sol. 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 Sol leads with 80.8% against 74.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0061 per sample against $0.014. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.8s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.