Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

78.34/100
Margin
13.2pts
← winning
65.1/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Grok 4.3 #31 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok 4.3 share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 5 to Grok 4.3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Opus 4.8 only
33
Grok 4.3 only
5
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 78.34 to 65.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 81.1 against 47.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% to 35%. Grok 4.3 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.8 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.

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 4.8 and Grok 4.3
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔGrok 4.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1Margin← 33.8Grok 4.347.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 20.3Grok 4.342.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0Margin→ 1.1Grok 4.378.1
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapGrok 4.3Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapGrok 4.3Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.381.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Grok 4.3

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 35%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 22.9
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; Grok 4.3 scored 35%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 90.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 3.5
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Grok 4.3 scored 90.1%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputGrok 4.3$1.25 input / $2.5 outputGrok 4.3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGrok 4.3209 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGrok 4.312.36 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MGrok 4.31MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 15941085Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%43.86%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%24.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%97.7%Grok 4.3 leads
GDPval-AASource 54.7%29.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%12.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1347—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —17.0%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%42.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%47.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
SciCodeSource —47.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%64.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%8.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
GPQASource 93.6%90.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%35%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%37.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%90.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%35.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%18.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%34.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%25.0%Grok 4.3 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MultimodalGrok 4.3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12701225Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMMU-ProSource —78.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%81.3%Grok 4.3 leads
IFBenchSource —81.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.3?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 65.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 35%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.3?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 42.4. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.3?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 47.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.3?

Grok 4.3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.1 versus 77. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.