Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Grok 4.7
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.7 in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 40.1 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 0.3% for Claude Opus 4 and 17.7% for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 46.6 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 500K |
| Max output | 32K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.8 (#55), Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1423 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1636 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.4% |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), Grok 4.7: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 17.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1409 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 76.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1391 | 1393 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 34% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | 1413 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20.8% |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1476 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1396 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1406 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1416 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1389 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Grok 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 or Grok 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 47.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Grok 4.7 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 21.