Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Anthropic

69.94/100

Estimated · Public rank #23

90% interval 51.6–81.5

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Grok Code Fast 1

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

xAI logo
Model B
Grok Code Fast 1

xAI

37.21/100

Supported · Public rank #206

90% interval 34.3–40.1

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 69.94 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Grok Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Grok Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok Code Fast 1 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
20
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
59.6
Estimated · #27/183
Grok Code Fast 1
32.5
Estimated · #163/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
61.9
Estimated · #31/181
Grok Code Fast 1
39.1
Estimated · #144/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
61.0
Supported · #21/151
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
49.7
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Grok Code Fast 1
57.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
50.3
#36/48
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Grok Code Fast 1
48.2
#83/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.0175
Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1
$0.00095
Fits in one request

Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.325
Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1
$0.0145
Fits in one request

Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok Code Fast 1
$0.059
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

1M

Grok Code Fast 1

256K

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not published

Grok Code Fast 1

Not published

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Reasoning

Grok Code Fast 1

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

2026-04-16

Grok Code Fast 1

2025-08-28

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 69.94 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0145. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.059.
Context tradeoff
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 170.8%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%
    Source
    Grok Code Fast 1—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 69.94 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59.6 to 32.5. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok Code Fast 1 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok Code Fast 1?

Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok Code Fast 1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0145; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.059. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Grok Code Fast 1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.