Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok 4.1 Fast
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 36× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 10 categories and Grok 4.1 Fast in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 62.7 to 30.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 4% for Grok 4.1 Fast.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
- Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2025-06-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 68 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | 1241 |
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1411 |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | 394.93 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | 13.1% |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | 1171 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | 1,107 |
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 69.6% |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | 56% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1407 |
| DTBench | 91.2% | 87.7% |
| ForecastBench | 60 | 61 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | 60.9% |
| ProofBench | 50% | 4% |
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1408 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1398 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1201 |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1391 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1416 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1404 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1347 |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | 1361 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | 1411 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1376 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1390 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1408 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1394 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | 1327 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1389 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Grok 4.1 Fast?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 36× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.1 Fast?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.1 Fast better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.1 Fast has 32.