Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grounded SAM
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Grounded SAM side-by-side.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grounded SAM 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 vs Grounded SAM: 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.
Grounded SAM is an open-vocabulary image segmentation model developed by IDEA Research, released in January 2024 under the Apache 2.0 license. It combines Grounding DINO, a zero-shot open-vocabulary object detector, with the Segment Anything Model to produce precise segmentation masks for objects identified through free-form text prompts. The two models are used sequentially: Grounding DINO localizes objects from a text query, and SAM generates the corresponding segmentation masks.
Grounded SAM enables zero-shot instance segmentation without task-specific training data, making it applicable to domains where labeled segmentation data is scarce. It supports arbitrary text queries and can segment objects not represented in standard training sets. The model is commonly used in automated labeling pipelines, robotic perception, and domain-specific vision applications requiring open-vocabulary segmentation.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Grounded SAM Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Grounded SAM |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | IDEA Research |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jan 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 61 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | |
| Median output tokens | 64 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology