Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 48.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 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 $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 48.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1375 |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | 1,150 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | 4,663 |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | 65.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 89.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 151.98 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 14% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1455 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | 30.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1439 |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | 0% |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1476 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1443 |
| LMArena German | — | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1449 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1417 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1420 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.