# Claude Opus 4.5 vs Grok 4

> Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-grok-4
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 38

## Summary

- They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4 in 4 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 46.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Cybench: 82% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 43% for Grok 4.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 48.1 |
| Rank | 47 | 56 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27)
- Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 63.7% | 45.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1408 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1494 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12)
- Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | 27.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | 63% |
| GDPval | 45.5% | 21.1% |
| Cybench | 82% | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | 47.3% |
| BALROG | 43.5% | 43.6% |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | 66.6% |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51)
- Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | 16% |
| SimpleBench | 62% | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | 73.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 28% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1409 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.09 | 146.44 |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | 60.9 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132)
- Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | 84% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 2.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44)
- Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | 87% |
| LMArena Expert | 1487 | 1415 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107)
- Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | 45% |
| LMArena Vision | — | 1210 |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47)
- Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1427 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | 1377 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1410 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1420 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19)
- Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22)
- Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28)
- Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Grok 4?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 50.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Grok 4 share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.