Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok 4
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Grok 4 in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 36.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 93.3% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 16% for Grok 4.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 48.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2025-07-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | — |
| Results tracked | 44 | 48 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1408 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 45.7% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 47.3% |
| BALROG | — | 43.6% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | 16% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 66.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1409 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 146.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 28% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.9 |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 87% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1415 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1210 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1427 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1410 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1420 |
| LMArena German | — | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |
Long Context Grok 4 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Grok 4?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Grok 4 better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 50.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Grok 4 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.