Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Grok 4 in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 36.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 90.4% for Claude Opus 5 and 16% for Grok 4.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 48.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2025-07-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 48 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 45.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1408 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 63.4% | 43.6% |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 47.3% |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | 16% |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 60.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 28% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1409 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 146.44 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.9 |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 84% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 87% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1415 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1210 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1427 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1377 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1410 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1420 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |
Long Context Grok 4 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Grok 4?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4 better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 50.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4 share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.