# Claude 2.1 vs Grok 4

> Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-grok-4
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4 leads 53.8 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 84% for Grok 4.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 48.1 |
| Rank | 345 | 56 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 45.7% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1408 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 47.3% |
| BALROG | — | 43.6% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 146.44 |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | 60.9 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 16% |
| SimpleBench | — | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 28% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1409 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 84% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 87% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1415 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1210 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1427 |
| LMArena French | — | 1418 |
| LMArena German | — | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1377 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1410 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1420 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1387 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1409 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1397 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1416 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Grok 4?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Grok 4 better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Grok 4 share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.