# Claude Opus 4.1 vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

> Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-grok-4-20
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 31

## Summary

- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 48.2 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 44.9% 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 4.1.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 48.6 |
| Rank | 142 | 54 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1375 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,150 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 57.3% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | 1189 |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 80% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 151.98 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 61.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89.5% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 92.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1455 |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 89.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1439 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1449 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1443 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1420 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1438 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 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 4.1 and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.