| Signal | Claude Opus 4.7 | Delta | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 80 | +4 | |
Pricing | 75 | -24 | |
Context window size | 95 | -5 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +11 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
81.4
current score
Claude Opus 4.7
right now
78.3
current score
Anthropic
xAI
Grok 4.1 Fast saves you $1705.00/month
That's $20460.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4.7 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.1 Fast | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 81 | 78 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Rank | #32 | #46 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Quality Rank | #32 | #46 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Adoption Rank | #32 | #46 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 2000K | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $0.20/$0.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Benchmarks | 80 | 76 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Pricing | 75 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Context window size | 95 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 75 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 81/100 (rank #32), placing it in the top 89% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #46), placing it in the top 84% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 3-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Grok 4.1 Fast offers 98% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $10.50/month with Grok 4.1 Fast vs $450.00/month with Claude Opus 4.7 - a $439.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Grok 4.1 Fast also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (2000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (81/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Opus 4.7 has a moderate advantage with a 3.1000000000000085-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Grok 4.1 Fast has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.7
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Grok 4.1 Fast
98% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.7
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.7
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.7
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
xAI
Grok 4.1 Fast saves you $38.04/month
That's 98% cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 30,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Apr 16, 2026 | Nov 19, 2025 |
Grok 4.1 Fast achieves a 75/100 score at just $0.50/M output tokens, suggesting xAI has made significant architectural optimizations that deliver superior coding performance without the premium pricing. The 9-point score gap combined with the 50x output price differential makes Grok 4.1 Fast approximately 450x more cost-efficient per quality point for high-volume code generation tasks.
The 2x context window difference allows Grok 4.1 Fast to process entire medium-sized codebases (roughly 500K lines) in a single pass, while Claude Opus 4.7 would require chunking. However, Claude Opus 4.7's massive 128K max output tokens vastly exceeds Grok's 30K limit, making Claude superior for generating large code artifacts or comprehensive documentation despite the $25/M output cost.
Despite both supporting Vision, Function Calling, and Reasoning, Grok 4.1 Fast's file handling modality and 2M context window likely enable superior whole-project analysis that drives its 75/100 coding score. The rank differential from #1 to #7 suggests the coding benchmarks heavily weight large-context understanding over raw generation quality, where Claude's 4.3x larger output capacity provides no scoring advantage.
Claude Opus 4.7's $25/M output pricing only makes sense for scenarios requiring massive single-shot generations exceeding Grok's 30K token limit, such as generating entire SDKs or comprehensive API documentation. For typical coding tasks under 30K tokens output, paying 50x more for 9 points lower performance (66/100 vs 75/100) is economically unjustifiable.
Grok 4.1 Fast's file handling capability and 2M token window suggest optimization for repository-scale analysis, while Claude Opus 4.7's 128K output limit indicates focus on long-form generation quality. The $4.80/M input price gap ($5 vs $0.20) implies Claude uses significantly more compute per token, yet still underperforms by 12% on coding benchmarks, suggesting xAI's architecture better aligns with how coding benchmarks evaluate model performance.