# Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4

> Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 47.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-8-vs-grok-4
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 32

## Summary

- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Grok 4 in 2 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.2 to 46.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 72.1% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 16% for Grok 4.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 47.8 |
| Rank | 9 | 49 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.8: 60.2 (#9)
- Grok 4: 49.9 (#44)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 82.9% | 45.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1491 | 1408 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#10)
- Grok 4: 32.1 (#62)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | 47.3% |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | 1142 |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| BALROG | — | 43.6% |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.8: 64.6 (#14)
- Grok 4: 36.9 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | 16% |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | 73.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | 28% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1409 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.3 | 146.46 |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | 60.9 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.8: 78.2 (#11)
- Grok 4: 46.5 (#58)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 84% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | 2.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#26)
- Grok 4: 53.7 (#50)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 87% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1417 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.8: 43.2 (#20)
- Grok 4: 33.1 (#89)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1295 | 1211 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.8: 55.4 (#31)
- Grok 4: 52.0 (#98)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1509 | 1428 |
| LMArena French | 1482 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1396 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1376 |
| LMArena Russian | 1476 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | 1419 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.8: 77.6 (#22)
- Grok 4: 79.4 (#4)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#37)
- Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.8: 72.1 (#17)
- Grok 4: 58.7 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1460 | 1412 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Grok 4?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 47.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.2 versus 49.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok 4 share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.