# Claude Opus 4.5 vs Grok 4.7

> Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 46.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.7 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-grok-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4.7 in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 56.4 to 38.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 76.8% for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 46.6 |
| Rank | 39 | 56 |
| Context | 200K | 500K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4 (#21)
- Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1493 | 1636 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1423 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.4% |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11)
- Grok 4.7: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43)
- Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | 76.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1409 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| CritPt | — | 17.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.1 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85)
- Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 36% | 34% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1393 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38)
- Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1488 | 1413 |
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99)
- Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | 20.8% |
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45)
- Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1476 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1396 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1455 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20)
- Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1406 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21)
- Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1416 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28)
- Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1389 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Grok 4.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 46.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.7 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (55.4 vs 55.0); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Grok 4.7 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 21.