Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Grok 4.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
10.5pts
winning →
76.72/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok 4.5 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 10 to Grok 4.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
20
Grok 4.5 only
10
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 76.72 to 66.27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 83.3 against 75.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.4% to 83.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.5. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 500K for Grok 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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Grok 4.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGrok 4.5
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 13.9Grok 4.564.7
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 8.2Grok 4.583.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Grok 4.5

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 83.3%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 13.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 64.7%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 0.4
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGrok 4.5$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGrok 4.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGrok 4.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGrok 4.5500KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGrok 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%83.3%Grok 4.5 leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%45.7%Grok 4.5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%51.7%Grok 4.5 leads
GDPval-AASource 14951535Grok 4.5 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
deepSweSource —53%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1323Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —51.4%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —40.8%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —92.4%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —32.6%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —81.6%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%64.7%Grok 4.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%83.3%Grok 4.5 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%72.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%54.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE MultilingualSource —78%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —66.7%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source —91.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%67.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%15.4%Grok 4.5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%53.8%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%93.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%40.3%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%26.4%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%52.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%53.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%80.4%Grok 4.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251325Tie
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Grok 4.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 76.72 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.4% and 83.3%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 64.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.