Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4 Sonnet vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.89/100
Margin
12.0pts
winning →
53.88/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #168 (Supported); Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and Grok 4.20 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 16 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 28, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude 4 Sonnet only
13
Grok 4.20 only
16
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet 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 3 shared benchmark results across 3 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 41.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 Sonnet 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 Sonnet.

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 Sonnet and Grok 4.20
CategoryClaude 4 SonnetΔGrok 4.20
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet72.7Margin← 5.6Grok 4.2067.1
AgenticClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2047.1
ReasoningClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2053.3
MultimodalClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2070.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4 SonnetB · Grok 4.20

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 72.7%B 76.7%
    Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; 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 SonnetGrok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4 Sonnet40 tok/sGrok 4.20233 tok/sGrok 4.20 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4 Sonnet1.33 sGrok 4.2010.33 sClaude 4 Sonnet reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4 Sonnet200KGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 52.3%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 39.66%38.36%Claude 4 Sonnet leads
JobBenchSource 18.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —47.1%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72.7%76.7%Grok 4.20 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 37.3%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —51.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —4.06%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
AA-LCRSource 44.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 1.1%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —53.3%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source —0.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.5%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 68.3%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 22.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 40.8%—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 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 62.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11701252Grok 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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetGrok 4.20Result
AA-IFBenchSource 45.4%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.88 to 41.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 76.7%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Grok 4.20?

Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 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.