AnthropicClaude Opus 5VSxAIGrok 4.5
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 5 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 3.3x cheaper Grok 4.5 to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, Claude Opus 5 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose Claude Opus 5 for complex development tasks, or Grok 4.5 for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%, while Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%, while Grok 4.5 scored 93%.
Cost Efficiency: Grok 4.5 pricing ($2/M input, $6/M output) is 3.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+14.5%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.7%)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
64.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)3.3x cheaper
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
500k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.5
Grok 4.5 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5. Grok 4.5 has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 3.3x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Claude Opus 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 79.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.5 which scores 64.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.5.
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.