Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 44 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.5

Rank #48 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 44 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 10 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.5 to 48.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 85.4% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
  • Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ProviderAnthropicxAI
Noometry Index58.448.5
Released2026-04-142026-02-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K30K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.50
Results tracked6646

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.9 (#10), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena WebDev15571374
WeirdML76.4%52.3%
LMArena Coding15191458
ALE-Bench1,3231,150
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Terminal-Bench80.2%57.3%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%18%
LMArena Search12331189
Vending-Bench 210,9374,663
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.7 (#24), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ARC-AGI-275.8%65.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%75%
NYT Connections (extended)39%85.4%
ARC-AGI-193.5%89.5%
Chess Puzzles30%24%
Thematic Generalization72.8%63.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts15071451
DTBench94.7%90.1%
LMCA52.2%38.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39152.01
ForecastBench60.361.4
SimpleBench61.7%—
CritPt12%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%44.9%
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%17.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%92.2%
ProofBench54%14%
LMArena Math14991455
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GPQA Diamond90.2%89.3%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%30.2%
LMArena Expert15211440
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Vision13171263
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%0%
LMArena Document14951416
Furniture Assembly33.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Non-English14811440
LMArena Chinese15301481
LMArena French15051477
LMArena German14941463
LMArena Japanese14721450
LMArena Korean14661417
LMArena Russian14941457
LMArena Spanish14971442

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Instruction Following14981420

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Longer Query15051436
CL-bench—22.2%
CL-bench Life—11.9%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Text14911451
LMArena Creative Writing14861439
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141574
LMArena Multi-Turn15061456
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

44 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.

Related comparisons

Go deeper