Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
11.6pts
← winning
54.68/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok 4.20 share 8 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 10 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
8
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
30
Grok 4.20 only
10
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 54.68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 75.1 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 91% to 60.9%. Grok 4.20 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

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 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok 4.20
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGrok 4.20
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 28.0Grok 4.2047.1
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin← 22.5Grok 4.2053.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 11.5Grok 4.2067.1
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 5.0Grok 4.2070.1
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Grok 4.20

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 60.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 30.1
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. ARC-AGI-2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 75.8%B 53.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 22.5
    ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Grok 4.20 scored 53.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 47.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 22.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 51.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 12.5
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 76.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGrok 4.20233 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGrok 4.2010.33 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%47.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1495—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —38.36%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%76.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%51.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —4.06%Not comparable
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%53.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-LCRSource 70.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 12.0%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%88.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%31.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 39.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.3%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —50.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
MultimodalGrok 4.20 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%60.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251257Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MMMU-ProSource —75.2%Not comparable
ERQASource —54.1%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —57.4%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —65.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.20Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.20?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 60.9%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.20?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.20?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 53.3. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.20?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.1 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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 23, 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.