Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 5
94
Grok Code Fast 1
39
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+7.6 difference
Claude Sonnet 5
Grok Code Fast 1
$3 / $15
$0.2 / $1.5
N/A
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
1M
256K
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 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. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 39.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 63.2. Claude Sonnet 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.