Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.7% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#9 of 69 models). We have not run Claude Sonnet 4.6 through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score. Run both on your own image below.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 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
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | Not evaluated | 81.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0068 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 12.82s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 |
| Counting (low) | – | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | – | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is Anthropic's mid-tier large language model, released February 17, 2026, designed to balance performance, cost, and versatility for professional and developer use. It supports text and vision-based tasks with advanced reasoning, agentic capabilities, and Adaptive Thinking — a mode where the model dynamically scales its internal reasoning depth. A beta context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens (200K standard) enables processing of entire codebases or document collections in a single request. Parameters are undisclosed.
Optimized for coding, computer use, long-context reasoning, agent planning, and knowledge work, Sonnet 4.6 delivers a full generational upgrade over Sonnet 4.5 and approaches Opus 4.5-level performance across many benchmarks at a fraction of the cost. It is the default model on Claude.ai, Claude Cowork, and is available via API and major cloud platforms — making it well suited for production workloads requiring strong reasoning without flagship pricing.
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.
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.