Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.5

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Classification, Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare GPT-5.6 Terra 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.

Open Classification in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Terra
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 60.7% to 18.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Terra averages 72.4% (#13 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.

GPT-5.6 Terra is both cheaper ($0.0044 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (7.2s vs 14.3s per sample).

GPT-5.6 TerraGrok 4.5

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 TerraGrok 4.5
OrganizationOpenAISpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.00$2.00
Output $/1M$6.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
72.4%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0044$0.0077
Avg speed / sample7.15s14.33s
By task
Object Detection
60.7%
$0.0070
18.0%
$0.0100
Counting
67.6%
$0.0030
55.4%
$0.0065
Identification
78.1%
$0.0020
78.1%
$0.0045
OCR
88.8%
$0.0065
92.5%
$0.0065
Data Extraction
79.4%
$0.0018
83.5%
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
59.6%
$0.0025
58.3%
$0.0076
Reasoning (high)
64.2%
$0.0033
59.6%
$0.011

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.5: Overview

GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Terra scores 84.3%, matching Claude Fable 5 on that benchmark. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.

GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.

Grok 4.5

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, GPT-5.6 Terra performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 72.4% (#13 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, GPT-5.6 Terra leads with 60.7% against 18.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0044 per sample against $0.0077. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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.

GPT-5.6 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.2s 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 image classification and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.