Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 VS xAI Grok 4.5
⚖️Our Take
Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 0.8%. We recommend choosing Grok 4.5 as it is the more cost-effective option (being 3.3x cheaper) without sacrificing any real-world capability.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
64.3%excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.2%)
94.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Performance
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.4%)
64.7%excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Performance
Cost (per 1M tokens)3.3x cheaper
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
500k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.5 comparison
Grok 4.5 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. Grok 4.5 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.
Grok 4.5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.7% on swe-bench-pro (excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases) compared to Claude Opus 4.7 which scores 64.3%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.5.