Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Grok 4.7
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 50.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.7 in 6 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.7 leads 57.8 to 38.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 12% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 38% for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 53.1 |
| Released | 2025-11-01 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 500K |
| Max output | 64K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 69 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1494 | 1639 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1427 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.8% |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | 10,537 |
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 54.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 22.8% |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | 76.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1413 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | 29% |
| DTBench | 89.9% | 96% |
| LMCA | 44.5% | 49.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.09 | 153.53 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| CritPt | — | 18% |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | 53% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | 98.1% |
| ProofBench | 36% | 34% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | 56% |
| LMArena Expert | 1487 | 1422 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | 20.8% |
| LMArena Vision | — | 1228 |
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 32.5% |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1389 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1455 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1397 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1400 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1404 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1413 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1399 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Grok 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 50.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 54.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Grok 4.7 share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 39.