Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.7

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok 4.7 side-by-side.

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol 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

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 68.4% to 40.4%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 79.0% (#12 of 54) against 71.9% (#22 of 54) for Grok 4.7.

GPT-5.6 Sol is both cheaper ($0.0088 vs $0.012 per sample) and faster (10.3s vs 23.6s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolGrok 4.7

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

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

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolGrok 4.7
OrganizationOpenAISpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.5M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$1.60
Output $/1M$10.00$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
79.0%
71.9%
Avg cost / sample$0.0088$0.012
Avg speed / sample10.32s23.55s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.9 to 69.3
$0.015
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.017
Object Detection (high)
68.4%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.7 to 69.3
$0.035
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.023
Counting (low)
74.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 75.7
$0.0049
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.0086
Counting (high)
76.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4
$0.0078
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.013
Identification (low)
89.6%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 93.8
$0.0028
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0050
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0030
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0074
OCR (low)
90.7%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.7
$0.011
92.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.1 to 93.4
$0.014
OCR (high)
90.2%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 90.4
$0.025
93.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.1 to 93.8
$0.034
Data Extraction (low)
84.9%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6
$0.0033
84.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 87.6
$0.0048
Data Extraction (high)
86.9%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6
$0.0041
87.6%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0054
Reasoning (low)
66.0%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 68.9
$0.0043
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.012
Reasoning (high)
71.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.2 to 72.8
$0.0061
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.019

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.7: Overview

GPT-5.6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.

GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary model from SpaceXAI, released on September 21, 2026. It accepts text and images as input and returns text. It extends Grok 4.6 and is listed at the same API price.

Its Vision Evals scores are on the leaderboard. Running it in the Playground is not available yet, because the inference workflow is not ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 79.0% (#12 of 54) against 71.9% (#22 of 54) 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, GPT-5.6 Sol leads with 68.4% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-5.6 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0088 per sample against $0.012. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 is priced at $1.60 per 1M input tokens and $4.80 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.3s per inference against 23.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.