Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Grok 4.3
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Grok 4.3 #31 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Grok 4.3 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 7 to Grok 4.3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 41
- Grok 4.3 only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.3 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.1 versus 64.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Grok 4.3's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 81.3 against 69.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 58% to 81.3%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.3. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 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 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 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 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Δ | Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 24.4 | Grok 4.347.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 15.7 | Grok 4.342.4 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | Margin→ 11.8 | Grok 4.381.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | Margin→ 8.2 | Grok 4.378.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.3Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.3Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.3Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 58%B 81.3%Winner: Grok 4.3Δ 23.3IFBench: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 58%; Grok 4.3 scored 81.3%. Grok 4.3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 70.6%B 78.1%Winner: Grok 4.3Δ 7.5MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Grok 4.3 scored 78.1%. Grok 4.3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.8%B 35%Winner: Grok 4.3Δ 4.2HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; Grok 4.3 scored 35%. Grok 4.3 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87%B 90.1%Winner: Grok 4.3Δ 3.1GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; Grok 4.3 scored 90.1%. Grok 4.3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Grok 4.3$1.25 input / $2.5 output | Grok 4.3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Grok 4.3209 tok/s | Grok 4.3 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Grok 4.312.36 s | Claude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Grok 4.31M | Grok 4.3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 97.7% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | 43.86% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 29.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 24.1% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 17.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1085 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 12.4% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 47.3% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 42.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | 90.1% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | 35% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 37.6% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 90.1% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 35.0% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 18.3% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 34.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 25.0% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalGrok 4.3 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Grok 4.3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | 78.1% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | 78.1% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | 1225 | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.3?
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.1 to 64.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 58% and 81.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.3?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 42.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.3?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 47.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.3?
Grok 4.3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.1 versus 69.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Grok 4.3?
Grok 4.3 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 81.3 versus 69.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.