Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.5
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 36.1% to 18.0%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#21 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.
Claude Sonnet 5 is both cheaper ($0.0064 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (4.8s vs 14.3s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| 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% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0064 | $0.0077 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.84s | 14.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 36.1% $0.011 | 18.0% $0.0100 |
| Counting | 56.8% $0.0030 | 55.4% $0.0065 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0027 | 78.1% $0.0045 |
| OCR | 91.7% $0.0078 | 92.5% $0.0065 |
| Data Extraction | 89.7% $0.0030 | 83.5% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (low) | 43.0% $0.0032 | 58.3% $0.0076 |
| Reasoning (high) | 43.0% $0.0043 | 59.6% $0.011 |
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.5: Overview
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.
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 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.4% (#21 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) 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, Claude Sonnet 5 leads with 36.1% against 18.0%. 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 $0.0077. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.5 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 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s per inference against 14.3s. 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 open prompts and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.