Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Grok 4.7 side-by-side.

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.

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 4.7 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 40.4%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 71.9% (#26 of 60) for Grok 4.7.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0065 vs $0.012 per sample) and faster (10.8s vs 23.6s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.60
Output $/1M$4.80
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%
71.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.012
Avg speed / sample10.78s23.55s
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
$0.017
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
$0.023
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
$0.0086
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
$0.013
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
$0.0050
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
$0.0074
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
92.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.1 to 93.4
$0.014
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
93.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.1 to 93.8
$0.034
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
84.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 87.6
$0.0048
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
87.6%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0054
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
$0.012
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
$0.019

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 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 71.9% (#26 of 60) 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 $0.0065 per sample against $0.012. 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 23.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.