Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4.1 Opus
52
Grok 4.20
73
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+13.5 difference
Claude 4.1 Opus
Grok 4.20
$15 / $75
$2 / $6
29 t/s
233 t/s
1.66s
10.33s
200K
2M
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. That is roughly 12.5x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 76.7%.
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 61. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.