Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok Code Fast 1
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Grok Code Fast 1 #189 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Grok Code Fast 1 share 10 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 69 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 2 to Grok Code Fast 1.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 69
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 3 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 37.77. 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 coding, where it averages 89.5 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 96% to 70.8%.
Claude Opus 5 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 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 Code Fast 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 18.7 | Grok Code Fast 170.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 70.8%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 25.2SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. 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 Code Fast 1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Grok Code Fast 1256K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 75.7% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 70.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 36.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 21.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 72.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 7.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -36.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 23.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 78.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok Code Fast 1 | 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Grok Code Fast 1?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 37.77. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 96% and 70.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Grok Code Fast 1?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 70.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.