Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.6 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 66% for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 500K |
| Max output | 32K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1617 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,508 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| SciCode | — | 56.5% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 75.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 40% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | 30.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 34% |
| DTBench | 80% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 156.44 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 67.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 19.7% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 99.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1423 |
| ProofBench | — | 51% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 94% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1467 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1425 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Grok 4.6 share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.