Claude Opus 4.7 vs Grok 4.5

Anthropic · US  |  xAI · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows or precise instruction following. Pick Grok 4.5 for cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about gpt-5.5-codex quality at roughly half the cost or extreme token efficiency — around 4x fewer output tokens per task than opus 4.8. On a tight budget at scale, Grok 4.5 is the value pick.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) and Grok 4.5 (xAI) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Grok 4.5 is xAI's first coding-focused model — pitched as Opus-class but faster, more token-efficient, and cheaper, undercutting GPT-5.5-Codex. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Opus 4.7Grok 4.5
ProviderAnthropic (US) xAI (US)
ReleasedApril 16, 2026 July 8, 2026
Context window1M (~1,500 pages) 500K (~750 pages)
Price (in/out)$5/$25 per 1M tokens $2/$6 per 1M tokens
Open weight?No — API only No — API only
Modalitiestext, image, code text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified87.6% Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Long-running agentic coding workflows

Claude Opus 4.7

A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.

Precise instruction following

Claude Opus 4.7

A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.

Task budgets and effort tiers

Claude Opus 4.7

A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.

Cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about GPT-5.5-Codex quality at roughly half the cost

Grok 4.5

A core design strength of Grok 4.5.

Extreme token efficiency — around 4x fewer output tokens per task than Opus 4.8

Grok 4.5

A core design strength of Grok 4.5.

In-IDE coding, trained on real Cursor developer sessions and shipped natively in Cursor

Grok 4.5

A core design strength of Grok 4.5.

Lowest cost at scale

Grok 4.5

At $2/$6 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.

Largest single-prompt input

Claude Opus 4.7

Its 1M window is about 2× larger, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

Grok 4.5

At $2/$6 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

Claude Opus 4.7

Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.

Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows

Claude Opus 4.7

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about gpt-5.5-codex quality at roughly half the cost

Grok 4.5

That is its strongest area.

Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits

The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 16, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.

Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.

Grok 4.5: where it fits

XAI's first coding-focused model — pitched as Opus-class but faster, more token-efficient, and cheaper, undercutting GPT-5.5-Codex. Released July 8, 2026 by xAI, it is built for cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about GPT-5.5-Codex quality at roughly half the cost, extreme token efficiency — around 4x fewer output tokens per task than Opus 4.8, in-IDE coding, trained on real Cursor developer sessions and shipped natively in Cursor, and top-tier placement on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

Its trade-offs: smaller 500K context (halved from the 1M generation), with pricing that doubles above 200K tokens, and eU launch delayed; no open weights. At $2 in / $6 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

The bottom line for this matchup

Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.5 overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. Grok 4.5 costs less per token; Claude Opus 4.7 holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows, Grok 4.5 for cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about gpt-5.5-codex quality at roughly half the cost. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.

Want both Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.5 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.5 better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Grok 4.5, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 4.7 leans toward long-running agentic coding workflows while Grok 4.5 leans toward cheap, token-efficient agentic coding — about gpt-5.5-codex quality at roughly half the cost, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 is cheaper — $5/$25 per 1M tokens vs $2/$6 per 1M tokens, roughly 2.5× apart on input.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 — 1M vs 500K, about 2× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.5 together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 4.7, Grok 4.5 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.

Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 — released July 8, 2026, about 3 months after Claude Opus 4.7.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.