Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4 Anthropic

43.1

Rank #100 Confirmed

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 27.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 8.6% for Claude Opus 4 and 65.1% 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.
  • Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ProviderAnthropicxAI
Noometry Index43.148.6
Released2025-05-222026-02-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output32K30K
Input $ / M tokens$15$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$75$2.50
Results tracked5646

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
WeirdML43.7%52.3%
LMArena Coding14421459
SWE-bench Verified70.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)67.6%—
Aider Polyglot72%—
LMArena WebDev—1375
GSO6.9%—
ALE-Bench—1,150
AlgoTune1.33—

Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call

Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Search11271189
Terminal-Bench—57.3%
τ²-bench Banking—18%
Cybench38%—
DeepResearch Bench46.8%—
METR Time Horizons63.9%—
Vending-Bench 2—4,663

Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ARC-AGI-28.6%65.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark74.3%75%
ARC-AGI-135.7%89.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13991451
DTBench81.6%90.1%
LMCA37.4%38.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index142.67151.98
ForecastBench61.161.4
SimpleBench58.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—85.4%
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles—24%
EnigmaEval5.6%—
Thematic Generalization—63.8%

Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202564.4%92.2%
LMArena Math13901455
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—44.9%
FrontierMath Tier 4—17.1%
ProofBench—14%
Omni-MATH61.6%—
MATH Level 585%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)4.5%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GPQA Diamond76.3%89.3%
LMArena Expert13861439
Humanity's Last Exam10.7%—
SimpleQA Verified—30.2%
MMLU-Pro87.5%—
Confabulations15.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)70.8%—

Multimodal Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Vision11921263
GeoBench49%—
VPCT38%—
Blueprint-Bench 2—0%
LMArena Document—1416

Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Non-English13621441
LMArena Chinese13861481
LMArena French13721476
LMArena German13911465
LMArena Japanese13311449
LMArena Korean13211417
LMArena Russian13921458
LMArena Spanish13891443

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Instruction Following14061420
IFEval91.8%—

Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Longer Query14221437
Fiction.LiveBench61.1%—
CL-bench—22.2%
CL-bench Life—11.9%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Text13771451
LMArena Creative Writing13871438
EQ-Bench Creative Writing15801574
LMArena Multi-Turn13961456
Short-Story Creative Writing83.6%—
WildBench85.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.

Is Claude Opus 4 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 42.1 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 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.

Related comparisons

Go deeper