Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5

Compare Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare Claude Opus 5 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.

Open Classification in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5 leads 54.4% to 18.0%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.1% (#8 of 28) against 64.3% (#24 of 28) for Grok 4.5.

Grok 4.5 is cheaper ($0.0077 vs $0.017 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (7.4s vs 14.3s per sample).

Claude Opus 5Grok 4.5

Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5Grok 4.5
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$2.00
Output $/1M$25.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Image Tagging
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.1%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.017$0.0077
Avg speed / sample7.38s14.33s
By task
Object Detection
54.4%
$0.027
18.0%
$0.0100
Counting
70.3%
$0.0096
55.4%
$0.0065
Identification
84.4%
$0.0072
78.1%
$0.0045
OCR
93.2%
$0.020
92.5%
$0.0065
Data Extraction
88.7%
$0.0080
83.5%
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
58.3%
$0.0076
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018
59.6%
$0.011

Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5: Overview

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.

Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.

Grok 4.5

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 5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#8 of 28) against 64.3% (#24 of 28) 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 5 leads with 54.4% 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 $0.017. Claude Opus 5 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 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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.