Grok 4 wins on price ($3 vs $5/1M input). Claude Opus 4.6 wins on coding (95 vs 80) and writing quality and context window (1M vs 256K). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger default — earlier opus flagship — the current opus is claude opus 5.5.
The safest Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the strongest answer here for Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 — 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 Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on coding with a score of 95 vs 80 for Grok 4.
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the safer default: it is built for agentic coding, complex multi-step reasoning, and deep research, which covers most of what people bring to this comparison.
Grok 4 earns its place when your work is mostly historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work, even though it loses the overall count here.
Grok 4 is the more cost-efficient option at $3/1M input — Claude Opus 4.6 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 Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Mar 24, 2026
Earlier Opus flagship — the current Opus is Claude Opus 5.5.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration.
Where the Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Retired May 15, 2026 — replaced by Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
Earlier Opus flagship — the current Opus is Claude Opus 5.5.
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 4.6Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 95 | 94 | 96 |
| 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 Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6: 95/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
Anthropic's previous Opus flagship for high-stakes coding, reasoning, and deep research before Opus 4.7.
You want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration.
Superseded several times over — by Opus 4.7, 4.8, 5 and now Opus 5.5. Still capable for pinned integrations, but new work should use Claude Opus 5.5 or the cheaper Sonnet 5.5.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.6 page.
The value option for Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6: about 40% less per token than Claude Opus 4.6, at 80/100 on coding. Worth starting here and moving up only if the output disappoints.
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 Grok 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 is aimed at agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning, 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 4.6 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs Grok 4's 256K. For large document analysis, Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding with a score of 95 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 4.6's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 4.6 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Premium pricing ($15/$75) makes it expensive for high-volume usage. Sonnet 4.6 is only 1.2 points behind on SWE-bench at 5× lower cost. Avoid it if you are starting a new integration — Claude Opus 5.5 is stronger and cheaper. 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 4.6 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (95 vs 80).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Grok 4 runs $60.00 (at $3/1M in and $15/1M out); Claude Opus 4.6 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M 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 4.6 for agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning, 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 4.6 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.