Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.20
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.20 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 73 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 13 to Grok 4.20.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 73
- Grok 4.20 only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 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 6 shared benchmark results across 4 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 53.92. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 90.4% to 53.3%. 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 5 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.
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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 43.7 | Grok 4.2047.1 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | Margin← 37.1 | Grok 4.2053.3 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 22.4 | Grok 4.2067.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 3.2 | Grok 4.2070.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.20Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 90.4%B 53.3%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 37.1ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.4%; Grok 4.20 scored 53.3%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 51.8%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 27.4SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 76.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 19.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | Grok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok 4.2010.33 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok 4.202M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | 62.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 47.1% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.36% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 76.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 51.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 4.06% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 31.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.3% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalGrok 4.20 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 60.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 57.4% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4.20?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 53.92. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 90.4% and 53.3%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4.20?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 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 5 or Grok 4.20?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 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 5 or Grok 4.20?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 47.1. Inside this category, DeepSearchQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4.20?
Grok 4.20 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.1 versus 66.9. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.