Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.7
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 53.1 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.7 costs 3.3× 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 4.7 in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 57.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 99% for Claude Opus 5 and 34% for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 53.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 500K |
| Max output | 128K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 39 |
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 4.7: 58.0 (#18)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | 47.6% |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | 46.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1639 |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | 29.5% |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 57.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1427 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | 54.6% |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | 22.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 10,537 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 76.8% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 18% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 38% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1413 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 29% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 96% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 49.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 153.53 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 53% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 98.1% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 34% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1407 |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 56% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1422 |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1228 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | 32.5% |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | 20.8% |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1389 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1455 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1397 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1400 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1404 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1399 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Grok 4.7?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 53.1 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.7 costs 3.3× 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 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 58.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.7 share?
39 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 39.