Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.20
| Signal | Claude Opus 4.7 | Delta | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 93 | +7 | |
Pricing | 75 | -22 | |
Context window size | 95 | -5 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +65 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
95.1
current score
Claude Opus 4.7
right now
88.8
current score
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
Grok 4.20
xAI
Grok 4.20 saves you $1500.00/month
That's $18000.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4.7 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.20 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 95 | 89 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Rank | #7 | #29 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Quality Rank | #7 | #29 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Adoption Rank | #7 | #29 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 2000K | Grok 4.20 |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $1.25/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Benchmarks | 93 | 86 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Pricing | 75 | 98 | Grok 4.20 |
| Context window size | 95 | 100 | Grok 4.20 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 20 | 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 95/100 (rank #7), placing it in the top 98% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 89/100 (rank #29), placing it in the top 90% of all 290 models tracked.
Claude Opus 4.7 has a 6-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 when you need:
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Choose Grok 4.20 when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Processing long documents or large codebases (2000K token context)
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Grok 4.20 offers 88% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $56.25/month with Grok 4.20 vs $450.00/month with Claude Opus 4.7 - a $393.75 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 4.20 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 ($2.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (95/100) 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 6.299999999999997-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Grok 4.20 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.7
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Grok 4.20
88% 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
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.7 | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
Grok 4.20
xAI
Grok 4.20 saves you $33.75/month
That's 87% 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 4.20 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Apr 16, 2026 | Mar 31, 2026 |
Grok 4.20's 74/100 score combined with its 2M token context window makes it particularly strong for large codebase refactoring and multi-file analysis tasks where Claude Opus 4.7's 1M token limit would require chunking. The performance gap is most pronounced in tasks requiring full repository context - Grok maintains its accuracy across 2x more code context while costing 4.2x less per output token ($6/M vs $25/M).
Claude Opus 4.7's 128K max output tokens provides a significant advantage for code generation tasks requiring extensive boilerplate or documentation generation, where Grok 4.20's unspecified output limit could be a bottleneck. Additionally, Anthropic's established enterprise support and Claude's reputation for safer outputs may justify the $25/M output pricing for regulated industries despite the 66/100 score.
Continuous integration pipelines and automated code review systems see 60% input cost savings with Grok 4.20, which becomes critical when processing thousands of pull requests daily. With both models supporting identical capabilities (Vision, Function Calling, JSON Mode), the 2.5x input price difference means teams can afford to analyze 2.5x more code commits for the same budget while getting better performance (74 vs 66 score).
Grok 4.20's native file handling (text+image+file->text) eliminates preprocessing overhead for direct repository uploads, while Claude Opus 4.7 requires file content extraction before processing. This architectural difference, combined with Grok's 2M token window, means developers can upload entire compressed project archives directly, though both achieve similar end results with their identical capability sets.
Migration makes financial sense for teams spending over $10K/month on Claude Opus 4.7, as Grok 4.20 delivers 12% better performance (74 vs 66 score) at 76% lower costs. However, teams heavily reliant on Claude's 128K token output guarantee should benchmark their specific use cases, as Grok 4.20's unspecified output limit could require architectural changes to handle response chunking.