Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Grok 4.7 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 74.3% to 40.4%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 77.6% (#10 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0073 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (8.3s vs 33.3s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$2.00
Output $/1M$10.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.6%
63.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0073$0.020
Avg speed / sample8.33s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR
66.3%
$0.0075
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
48.7%
Transcription
76.3%
Structured JSON
83.8%
Text localization
60.6%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7: 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 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 77.6% (#10 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7. 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 40.4%. 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 $0.0073 per sample against $0.020. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 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 Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s per inference against 33.3s. 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.