Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs Grok Code Fast 1

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.

45.88/100
Margin
7.2pts
← winning
38.64/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Grok Code Fast 1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 10 to Grok Code Fast 1.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
Grok Code Fast 1 only
10
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude 4.1 Opus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 256K context window.

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

Claude 4.1 Opus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 45.88 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4.1 Opus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 74.5 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.5% to 70.8%.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 50.0x on output cost alone. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 Code Fast 1
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔGrok Code Fast 1
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin 3.7Grok Code Fast 170.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · Grok Code Fast 1
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 70.8%
    Winner: Claude 4.1 OpusΔ 3.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. Claude 4.1 Opus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputGrok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 outputGrok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1172 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sGrok Code Fast 12.81 sClaude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KGrok Code Fast 1256KGrok Code Fast 1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
JobBenchSource 21.9%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 75.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%70.8%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 36.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
AA-LCRSource 48.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%21.6%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 72.7%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 7.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -36.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 23.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 78.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1209Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGrok Code Fast 1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude 4.1 Opus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 45.88 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 70.8%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 70.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.