Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok Build 0.1
Updated September 23, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 5.5 only
- 47
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 5.5How the comparison works
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
87.1Claude Opus 5.528.2Grok Build 0.1
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.6
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
47 Claude Opus 5.5 only
1 Grok Build 0.1 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.6 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.8
- Supported · #1/105
- Grok Build 0.1
- 27.5
- Estimated · #72/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 11 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 5.5
- 87.1
- Supported · #1/135
- Grok Build 0.1
- 28.2
- Estimated · #101/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 78.5
- #4/18
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.8
- #3/50
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 90.0
- Supported · #1/160
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 16 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok Build 0.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 88.8Supported · #1/105 | 27.5Estimated · #72/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 11 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 87.1Supported · #1/135 | 28.2Estimated · #101/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 78.5#4/18 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 88.8#3/50 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 90.0Supported · #1/160 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 16 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.6) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 5.5
- $0.014
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.002
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 5.5
- $0.26
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.056
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 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 5.5
- $0.32
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.08
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 5.5Grok Build 0.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 5.5
Grok Build 0.1
256K
API model ID
Claude Opus 5.5
claude-opus-5-5
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationGrok Build 0.1
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 5.5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationGrok Build 0.1
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationGrok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 5.5
Reasoning
Grok Build 0.1
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 5.5
2026-09-22
Grok Build 0.1
2026-05-20
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.26 vs $0.056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.32 vs $0.08.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok Build 0.1?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok Build 0.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 87.1 to 28.2. Grok Build 0.1 is 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 5.5 or Grok Build 0.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 88.8 to 27.5. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok Build 0.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.014 on Claude Opus 5.5 and $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1; repository review costs $0.26 and $0.056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.32 and $0.08. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok Build 0.1?
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence48 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Opus 5.566.40%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Opus 5.558.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 5.540.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 5.548.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.58.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 5.577.8%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 5.582.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 5.572.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 5.526.9 turnsSourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 5.5—Grok Build 0.149.15%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 5.554.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Claude Opus 5.557.8%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 5.589.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 5.593.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 5.561.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 5.574.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 5.563.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 5.562.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 5.589.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.730SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.962SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Opus 5.571.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 5.578.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 5.568.1%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 5.560.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 5.565.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 5.577.1%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 5.589.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 5.550.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 5.572.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 5.561.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Opus 5.534.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Opus 5.563.5%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 5.560.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Opus 5.556.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Opus 5.582.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 5.573.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 5.569.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
Math
48 public results · 0 shared
Watch Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok Build 0.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 23, 2026