Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok Code Fast 1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
30.0pts
← winning
38.64/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok Code Fast 1 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 0 to Grok Code Fast 1.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.6 only
34
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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 Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.

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 Opus 4.6 and Grok Code Fast 1
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔGrok Code Fast 1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 2.7Grok Code Fast 170.8
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Grok Code Fast 1

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 70.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 10
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputGrok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 outputGrok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1172 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sGrok Code Fast 12.81 sClaude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MGrok Code Fast 1256KClaude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%75.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%70.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%36.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%48.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%0.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
GPQASource 91.3%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%21.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%72.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%7.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-36.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%23.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%78.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1328—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%41.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.8% and 70.8%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok Code Fast 1?

Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 68.1. 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 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.