Claude Opus 4.8 wins on coding (96 vs 80) and writing quality and context window (1M vs 256K). Grok 4 wins on price ($3 vs $5/1M input). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger default — earlier opus — replaced by opus 5 and then opus 5.5.
The safest Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 4.8 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Grok 4 handles the same job for about 40% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Grok 4 is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.8 leads on coding with a score of 96 vs 80 for Grok 4.
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger context window: 1M vs 256K for Grok 4.
Grok 4 is cheaper at $3/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for Claude Opus 4.8.
Choose Claude Opus 4.8 for hardest coding tasks, parallel agentic workflows, and high-fidelity vision. Its coding and research scores are what carry the recommendation here.
Choose Grok 4 when your work is mostly historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Grok 4 is the more cost-efficient option at $3/1M input — Claude Opus 4.8 costs 2x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / May 27, 2026
Earlier Opus — replaced by Opus 5 and then Opus 5.5.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need low-latency responses, image generation, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling.
Where the Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Earlier Opus — replaced by Opus 5 and then Opus 5.5.
Retired May 15, 2026 — replaced by Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 96 | 96 | 98 |
| Grok 4xAI | $3.00/1M | $15.00/1M | $60 | 256k tokens | Fast | 80 | 70 | 78 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
The default answer for Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 — 96/100 on the coding axis, and the model we would start with unless the price below rules it out.
Anthropic's May 2026 Opus flagship — 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro, 88.6% SWE-Bench Verified, 1890 Arena Elo (121 pts ahead of GPT-5.5), and native parallel subagents. Same $5/$25 price as Opus 4.7.
You need low-latency responses, image generation, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling.
The best value at the premium tier now that Claude Fable 5 leads on raw capability. 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro, 1890 Elo, and built-in parallel subagents at $5/$25 — half the price of Fable 5. The smart default for serious coding when you don't need the absolute frontier.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.8 page.
Where most budgets should land for Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 — about 40% less per token than Claude Opus 4.8, and still 80/100 on the coding axis.
xAI's July 2025 flagship, priced at $3/$15 per million tokens with a 256K context window. Retired from xAI's API on May 15, 2026; current Grok models are Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
You need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both.
Retired: xAI shut down the grok-4-0709 API on May 15, 2026. It was a strong coding model at launch, at $3/$15 with a 256K window; earlier versions of this page listed $2/$6 and 2M tokens in error. Use Grok 4.7 instead.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok 4 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 4.8 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Grok 4 is the better pick when your work is mostly historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 4.8 is aimed at hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows, Grok 4 at historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work.
Grok 4 is cheaper at $3/1M input and $15/1M output. Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs Grok 4's 256K. For large document analysis, Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 4.8 is better for coding with a score of 96 vs Grok 4's 80 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Grok 4 is faster with a fast speed rating (score: 4) vs Claude Opus 4.8's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 4.8 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Deliberate pace — not the right pick for latency-sensitive applications. Same price tier as Opus 4.7; not a budget option. Avoid it if you need the highest possible coding ceiling (Fable 5 / Mythos 5), low-latency responses, or a workflow locked to OpenAI tooling. That is the main case for looking at Grok 4 instead.
Retired from xAI's API on May 15, 2026. Less established ecosystem and tooling than OpenAI or Anthropic. Avoid it if you need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both. Against Claude Opus 4.8 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (96 vs 80).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Opus 4.8 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out); Grok 4 runs $60.00 (at $3/1M in and $15/1M out). That is a $40.00/month difference — Grok 4 is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Opus 4.8 for hardest coding tasks and parallel agentic workflows, with Grok 4 handling historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Grok 4 at $3/1M and reserving Claude Opus 4.8 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.