Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 39 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 10 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 48.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 99% for Claude Opus 5 and 14% 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 5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 48.6 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1375 |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 1,150 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | 18% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 4,663 |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | 65.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 89.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 151.98 |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 14% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1455 |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 30.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1439 |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | 0% |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | 1416 |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1449 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1443 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1420 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
39 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.