Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Grok 4.5 side-by-side.

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 74.3% to 19.0%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 65.8% (#41 of 60) for Grok 4.5.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0065 vs $0.0084 per sample) and faster (10.8s vs 20.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.5
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
83.8%
65.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0084
Avg speed / sample10.78s20.75s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
92.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.5
$0.0068
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
92.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.9
$0.012
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
83.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 84.5
$0.0044
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
81.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 83.5
$0.0061
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.5: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 65.8% (#41 of 60) 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 at low effort, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads with 74.3% against 19.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0065 per sample against $0.0084. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.8s per inference against 20.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.