Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

78.34/100
Margin
1.6pts
← winning
76.72/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok 4.5 share 25 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 3 to Grok 4.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
25
Claude Opus 4.8 only
28
Grok 4.5 only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 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

Claude Opus 4.8 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 78.34 versus 76.72. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 81.1 against 64.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 74.6% to 83.3%. Grok 4.5 does hit back in agentic, 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 $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.5. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 and Grok 4.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔGrok 4.5
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1Margin← 16.4Grok 4.564.7
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin→ 3.0Grok 4.583.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapGrok 4.5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Grok 4.5

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 83.3%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 8.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 64.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 4.5
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%. 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 4.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputGrok 4.5$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGrok 4.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGrok 4.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MGrok 4.5500KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGrok 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%83.3%Grok 4.5 leads
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 15941535Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%45.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 54.7%51.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 13471323Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%51.4%Grok 4.5 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%40.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%92.4%Grok 4.5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%32.6%Grok 4.5 leads
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%81.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
deepSweSource —53%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%64.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%78%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%83.3%Grok 4.5 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%66.7%Grok 4.5 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%72.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%54.1%Grok 4.5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source —91.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%67.7%Tie
CritPtSource 20.9%15.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%53.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%93.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%40.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%26.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%52.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%53.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
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 4.5Result
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
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 12701325Grok 4.5 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Grok 4.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 76.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 74.6% and 83.3%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 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 4.8 or Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 80.3. 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.