Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4 Sonnet
50
Grok Code Fast 1
39
Pick Claude 4 Sonnet 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.
Coding
+1.9 difference
Claude 4 Sonnet
Grok Code Fast 1
$3 / $15
$0.2 / $1.5
40 t/s
172 t/s
1.33s
2.81s
200K
256K
Pick Claude 4 Sonnet 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.
Claude 4 Sonnet is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 50 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4 Sonnet's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72.7 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 72.7% to 70.8%.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude 4 Sonnet.
Claude 4 Sonnet is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 50 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 70.8%.
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.