Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Grok 4.5

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol vs Grok 4.5 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
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 19.0%.

Overall, GPT-6.1 Sol averages 81.7% (#5 of 63) against 55.3% (#46 of 63) for Grok 4.5.

GPT-6.1 Sol is both cheaper ($0.0068 vs $0.0078 per sample) and faster (12.8s vs 16.4s per sample).

GPT-6.1 SolGrok 4.5

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolGrok 4.5
OrganizationOpenAISpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.1M500K
ParametersundisclosedUnknown
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
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
81.7%
55.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0068$0.0078
Avg speed / sample12.82s16.41s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
OCR (low)
75.8%
$0.0069
57.1%
$0.0065
by category
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
95.7%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
74.4%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.4%
Structured JSON
80.3%
Text localization
6.1%
OCR (high)
75.8%
$0.016
57.5%
$0.013
by category
Single value
56.5%
Transcription
96.0%
Structured JSON
90.4%
Text localization
76.7%
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
86.1%
Structured JSON
80.9%
Text localization
7.0%
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Grok 4.5: Overview

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

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.