Grok 4.20 vs Claude Opus 4.7Benchmark Comparison 2026

Objective comparison based on public benchmarks updated weekly: Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond, Chatbot Arena ELO, pricing and speed.

Overall winner (2026)

Grok 4.20

4 of 6 criteria won

xAI

Grok 4.20

Winner

Intelligence Index

49.3

Coding Index

40.5

4 criteria won

View full profile

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.7

Intelligence Index

57.3

Coding Index

53.1

2 criteria won

View full profile

Detailed Comparison

CritérioGrok 4.20Claude Opus 4.7
Chatbot Arena ELO
Intelligence Index (AA)49.357.3
Coding Index (AA)40.553.1
GPQA Diamond91.0%91.0%
Input price ($/1M tok)$2.00$6.25
Output price ($/1M tok)$6.00$25.00
Context window2.0M tokens1.0M tokens
Speed (tokens/s)166 tok/s49 tok/s

✓ = winner in this criterion • Source: Artificial Analysis, LMArena, official APIs • Updated weekly

Technical Specifications

Grok 4.20

Company
xAI
Context window
2.0M tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$2.00
Output ($/1M tok)
$6.00
Speed
166 tok/s
Release
Apr 2026
Multimodal
Yes
Open Source
No
Official website
Visit

Claude Opus 4.7

Company
Anthropic
Context window
1.0M tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$6.25
Output ($/1M tok)
$25.00
Speed
49 tok/s
Release
Apr 2026
Multimodal
Yes
Open Source
No
Official website
Visit

When to use Grok 4.20 vs Claude Opus 4.7?

Choosing between Grok 4.20 and Claude Opus 4.7 depends on your use case, budget and technical requirements. Below, a practical guide based on benchmark data and each model's specifications.

Use Grok 4.20 when:

xAI · Multimodal

  • Complex reasoning, math and advanced programming — reasoning models are optimized for problems requiring multiple logical steps
  • Processing images, PDFs and visual documents alongside text — useful for analyzing contracts, reports with charts and mixed content
  • Long document analysis — 2.0M tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
  • API integration in SaaS applications — direct API access with documented SLA
View full Grok 4.20 profile

Use Claude Opus 4.7 when:

Anthropic · Multimodal

  • Complex reasoning, math and advanced programming — reasoning models are optimized for problems requiring multiple logical steps
  • Processing images, PDFs and visual documents alongside text — useful for analyzing contracts, reports with charts and mixed content
  • Long document analysis — 1.0M tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
  • API integration in SaaS applications — direct API access with documented SLA
View full Claude Opus 4.7 profile
SWEN Verdict: Grok 4.20 wins in more objective criteria in this comparison (4 vs 2). For most use cases, Grok 4.20 offers better aggregate performance — but Claude Opus 4.7 may be preferable if your project prioritizes complex reasoning, math and advanced programming.

Frequently Asked Questions

Grok 4.20 or Claude Opus 4.7: which is better?

Grok 4.20 wins in 4 of 6 criteria analyzed. Check the full table to choose based on your use case.

Where does this benchmark data come from?

Data is aggregated from Artificial Analysis (Intelligence Index, Coding Index) and Chatbot Arena/LMArena (ELO). Pricing and specs come from official APIs. Updated weekly.

What is the Intelligence Index?

The Intelligence Index is an aggregate score from Artificial Analysis that combines multiple academic benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, LiveBench, etc.) into a single rating. The higher the score, the more capable the model is at reasoning tasks.

Is Grok 4.20 cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7?

Yes. Grok 4.20 costs $2/1M input tokens, while Claude Opus 4.7 costs $6.25/1M tokens — 213% more expensive. For high-volume projects, Grok 4.20 represents significant savings. Total cost also depends on output pricing and your application's usage pattern.

Grok 4.20 or Claude Opus 4.7: which has a larger context window?

Grok 4.20 has the larger context window: 2.0M tokens vs 1.0M tokens. For long document analysis, extensive transcripts or full codebases, the larger context window is a decisive criterion.

Other Comparisons

claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v3-2claude-opus-4-7 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewclaude-opus-4-7 vs grok-4-3claude-opus-4-7 vs o4-miniclaude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-4gpt-5-5 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5 vs grok-4-3gpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-5-5 vs o4-minigpt-5-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-5-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5-pro vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs deepseek-v4-progemini-3-1-pro-preview vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs deepseek-v3-2deepseek-v3-2 vs grok-4-3deepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewdeepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-flash-litegrok-4-3 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs deepseek-v4-proo4-mini vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-flash-lite vs o4-minigemini-2-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-2-5-pro vs gpt-5-5gemini-2-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gpt-5-4-miniclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-3-flash-previewgpt-5-4-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-4-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgrok-4-20 vs gpt-5-5gpt-4o vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-4o vs gemini-2-5-progpt-4o vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-4o vs grok-4-3gpt-4o-mini vs claude-haiku-4-5gpt-4o-mini vs gemini-2-5-flashgpt-4o-mini vs deepseek-v3-2o3 vs claude-opus-4-7o3 vs r1o3 vs gemini-2-5-pror1 vs claude-opus-4-7r1 vs gpt-5-5llama-4-maverick vs claude-opus-4-7llama-4-maverick vs gpt-5-5llama-4-scout vs claude-sonnet-4-6claude-sonnet-4-6 vs claude-opus-4-7claude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-2-5-proView all
Grok 4.20 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Benchmark Comparison 2026 | SWEN.AI