Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 48.0 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 44.9% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1374 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1458 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,150 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 57.3% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | 1189 |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 80% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 152.01 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 61.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89.5% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 92.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1455 |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 89.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1440 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1450 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1442 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1420 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1436 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.