Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

44.78/100
Margin
9.1pts
winning →
53.88/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #149 (Supported); Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Grok 4.20 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 17 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 28, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
Grok 4.20 only
17
Comparable categories
1 / 8

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.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.88 to 44.78. 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.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and Grok 4.20
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔGrok 4.20
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin← 7.4Grok 4.2067.1
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2047.1
ReasoningClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2053.3
MultimodalClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2070.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · Grok 4.20

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 76.7%
    Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 2.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sGrok 4.20233 tok/sGrok 4.20 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sGrok 4.2010.33 sClaude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Result
JobBenchSource 21.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —47.1%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —38.36%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%76.7%Grok 4.20 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —51.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —4.06%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Result
ARC-AGI-2Source —53.3%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source —0.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —88.5%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —31.6%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.3%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —50.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok 4.20Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12021252Grok 4.20 leads
MMMU-ProSource —75.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource —60.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —54.1%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —57.4%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —65.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.88 to 44.78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 76.7%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Grok 4.20?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 28, 2026

Know when it’s worth switching models

The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.