Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro vs Grok 4: which model should you choose?

We compared Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro and Grok 4 on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro has the stronger average benchmark score; Grok 4 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro is a frontier model from Anthropic. It offers a 1,000,000-token context window, costs $18.73 per million input tokens and $82.29 per million output tokens, and averages 86.7 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$18.73 / 1M
Output
$82.29 / 1M
Context
1,000,000
Avg score
86.7
Open weights
No
Full Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro page
xAI

Grok 4

Grok 4 is a frontier model from xAI. It offers a 200,000-token context window, costs $17.90 per million input tokens and $84.75 per million output tokens, and averages 86.5 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$17.90 / 1M
Output
$84.75 / 1M
Context
200,000
Avg score
86.5
Open weights
No
Full Grok 4 page

Specification comparison

SpecClaude Sonnet 4.5 ProGrok 4Edge
Input price / 1M$18.73$17.90B
Output price / 1M$82.29$84.75A
Context window1,000,000200,000A
Max output16,38432,768B
Average score86.786.5A
Arena Elo1469.01457.8A
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro wins 6, Grok 4 wins 6, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ProGrok 4GapWinner
MMLU-Pro86.387.81.5Grok 4
GPQA Diamond83.182.60.5Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
SWE-bench Verified73.977.94.0Grok 4
HumanEval92.792.00.7Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
MATH-50090.190.80.7Grok 4
AIME 202588.482.26.2Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
LiveCodeBench81.982.20.3Grok 4
IFEval94.191.62.5Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
TruthfulQA86.187.61.5Grok 4
HellaSwag92.693.91.3Grok 4
MMMU84.582.91.6Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro
Arena Elo1469.01457.811.2Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro costs about $34.62 per million tokens and Grok 4 costs about $34.61. Grok 4 is roughly 0% cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro has the larger context window at 1,000,000 tokens, compared with 200,000 for Grok 4. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro wins 6, Grok 4 wins 6, and 0 are tied. On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro leads Grok 4 by 0.2 points (86.7 versus 86.5).

The price picture favours Grok 4. The context picture favours Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro for quality-sensitive work and Grok 4 for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Choose Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • You need the larger 1,000,000-token context window.

Choose Grok 4 if

  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 32,768-token output limit.

FAQ

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro better than Grok 4?

On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro leads Grok 4 by 0.2 points (86.7 versus 86.5). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro wins 6 benchmarks, Grok 4 wins 6.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro or Grok 4?

Grok 4 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $34.61 per million tokens, versus $34.62 for Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro has the larger context window at 1,000,000 tokens. Grok 4 has 200,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro is proprietary; Grok 4 is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro for quality-sensitive work and Grok 4 for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Related comparisons