Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol

Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-6 Sol side-by-side.

Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol 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

OpenAI

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol on Vision Evals

GPT-6 Sol scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6 Sol leads 73.6% to 36.1%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#36 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol.

Claude Sonnet 5 is both cheaper ($0.0064 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (4.8s vs 8.1s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5GPT-6 Sol

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5GPT-6 Sol
OrganizationAnthropicOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
Parametersundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00
Output $/1M$10.00
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
66.4%
80.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0064$0.0065
Avg speed / sample4.84s8.15s
By task
Object Detection (low)
36.1%
$0.011
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
Counting (low)
56.8%
$0.0030
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
Counting (high)
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0027
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0027
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
OCR (low)
91.7%
$0.0078
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
OCR (high)
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
Data Extraction (low)
89.7%
$0.0030
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-6 Sol: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5

Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.

The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.

GPT-6 Sol

GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.

The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.7% (#10 of 57) against 66.4% (#36 of 57) for Claude Sonnet 5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Sol leads with 73.6% against 36.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0064 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s per inference against 8.1s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.