Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 5 score 63.5% vs 55.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#33 and #49 of 65 models), so Grok 4.7 leads overall.

  • Grok 4.7 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (64.2% vs 43.0%).
  • Claude Sonnet 5 is about a third of the cost: $0.0074 vs $0.020 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Sonnet 5 is faster: 5.9s vs 33.3s per sample.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Sonnet 5Grok 4.7
Reasoning
43.0
64.2
Identification
81.3
87.5
Counting
56.8
61.7
Object Detection
36.1
40.4
OCR
59.4
63.6

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 5, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5Grok 4.7
OrganizationAnthropicSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateJun 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
Both support 10 more tasks
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
55.3%
63.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0074$0.020
Avg speed / sample5.86s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
36.1%
$0.011
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)–
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
56.8%
$0.0030
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)–
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0027
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)–
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR (low)
59.4%
$0.0078
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
52.2%
Transcription
88.6%
Structured JSON
78.3%
Text localization
13.1%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
59.5%
$0.015
–
by category
Single value
54.8%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
76.6%
Text localization
11.6%
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grok 4.7: 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.

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 4.7

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, Grok 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#33 of 65) against 55.3% (#49 of 65) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.7 leads with 64.2% against 43.0%. 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 $0.0074 per sample against $0.020. Claude Sonnet 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 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.9s 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.