Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.58/100
Margin
1.9pts
← winning
54.68/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Grok 4.20 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 16 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
3
Grok 4.20 only
16
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.58 versus 54.68. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 67.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 76.7%.

Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Grok 4.20
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔGrok 4.20
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3Margin← 6.2Grok 4.2067.1
AgenticClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2047.1
ReasoningClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2053.3
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured
MultimodalClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2070.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Grok 4.20

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.3%B 76.7%
    Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 3.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputClaude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableGrok 4.20233 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableGrok 4.2010.33 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —47.1%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —38.36%Not comparable
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%76.7%Grok 4.20 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —51.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —4.06%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
ARC-AGI-2Source —53.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
GPQA-DSource —88.5%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —31.6%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.3%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —50.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.20Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11521257Grok 4.20 leads
MMMU-ProSource —75.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource —60.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —54.1%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —57.4%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —65.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 76.7%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.