AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSxAIGrok 4.20
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 4.7 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 3.3x cheaper Grok 4.20 to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While Claude Opus 4.7 holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for complex logic, or Grok 4.20 for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 64.3%, while Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%, while Grok 4.20 scored 90%.
Cost Efficiency: Grok 4.20 pricing ($2/M input, $6/M output) is 3.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+12.5%)
64.3%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.2%)
94.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)3.3x cheaper
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. Grok 4.20 has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 3.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.20.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.