Skip to main content
BenchLM

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

Updated September 28, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic

80.49/100

Estimated · Public rank #5

90% interval 69.0–92.0

Model B
xAI logo
Grok 4.7

xAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
5
Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
42
Grok 4.7 only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Sonnet 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 4.7

    Grok 4.7 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

    Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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.

79.6Claude Sonnet 5.5—Grok 4.7

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
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.

1 category rests 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 v5.7 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.

Reasoning

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5.5
79.2
#7/27
Grok 4.7
75.0
#13/27
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
66.1
Supported · #10/111
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
79.6
Estimated · #3/136
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
83.3
Unranked · 7 rankable rows
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
80.9
Supported · #6/160
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 16 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
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 v5.7) 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 Sonnet 5.5
$0.007
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.005
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.13
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.118
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 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 Sonnet 5.5
$0.18
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.2
Fits in one request

Claude Sonnet 5.5 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.

Cached-input rate

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Grok 4.7

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

xAI Grok 4.7 model documentation

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Reasoning

Grok 4.7

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5.5

2026-09-28

Grok 4.7

2026-09-21

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.2.
Context tradeoff
Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5.5 and $0.005 on Grok 4.7; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 500K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence49 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%
    Source
    Grok 4.738.00%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turns
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)

    Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Grok 4.773.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench40

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%
    Grok 4.746.3%

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.771.0%
    Source

    Tie

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.729.5%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • EEBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.5—
    Grok 4.764.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.50.747
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.50.963
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Biomedical image analysis

    Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.756.7%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Morphology-to-molecule matching

    Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Medicinal chemistry

    Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design library ranking

    Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • De novo protein-binder design

    Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Sonnet 5.592.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Sonnet 5.591.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

49 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 28, 2026