Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 45 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 45 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 10 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 34.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 14% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
  • Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ProviderAnthropicxAI
Noometry Index58.248.6
Released2026-02-042026-02-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K30K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.50
Results tracked6846

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena WebDev15471375
WeirdML78%52.3%
LMArena Coding15361459
ALE-Bench996.51,150
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Terminal-Bench79.8%57.3%
τ²-bench Banking27.3%18%
LMArena Search12531189
Vending-Bench 28,0184,663
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ARC-AGI-269.2%65.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%75%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%85.4%
ARC-AGI-194%89.5%
Chess Puzzles17%24%
Thematic Generalization80.6%63.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271451
DTBench91.2%90.1%
LMCA55.8%38.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24151.98
ForecastBench6061.4
SimpleBench67.6%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%44.9%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%17.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%92.2%
ProofBench50%14%
LMArena Math15191455
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GPQA Diamond90.5%89.3%
SimpleQA Verified47%30.2%
LMArena Expert15461439
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Vision13161263
LMArena Document15071416
Blueprint-Bench 2—0%
Furniture Assembly28.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Non-English14891441
LMArena Chinese15511481
LMArena French15131476
LMArena German15021465
LMArena Japanese14841449
LMArena Korean14641417
LMArena Russian14971458
LMArena Spanish15101443

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Instruction Following15231420

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
CL-bench20.7%22.2%
CL-bench Life17%11.9%
LMArena Longer Query15201437

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Text15031451
LMArena Creative Writing15051438
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091574
LMArena Multi-Turn15131456
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

45 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.

Related comparisons

Go deeper