Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok-4.1 ThinkingWhich is better in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Grok-4.1 Thinking is 1.7x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok-4.1 Thinking — which is better?

Claude Opus 4.6 (by Anthropic) and Grok-4.1 Thinking (by xAI) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (FigQA), while Grok-4.1 Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, Grok-4.1 Thinking is roughly 1.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 4.6 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026

Choose Grok-4.1 Thinking if…

  • cost matters — it's about 1.7x cheaper per token
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (FigQA), while Grok-4.1 Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Jun 24 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Grok-4.1 Thinking costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Grok-4.1 Thinking ($3.00/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Grok-4.1 Thinking ($15.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than Grok-4.1 Thinking.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Jun 24 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
xAI
Grok-4.1 Thinking
Input tokens$3.00
Output tokens$15.00
Best providerxAI
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Grok-4.1 Thinking's 256,000 tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Grok-4.1 Thinking is limited to 8,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
xAI
Grok-4.1 Thinking
Input256,000 tokens
Output8,000 tokens
Wed Jun 24 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok-4.1 Thinking support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Grok-4.1 Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

Grok-4.1 Thinking

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while Grok-4.1 Thinking was released on 2025-11-17.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 3 months newer than Grok-4.1 Thinking.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

4 months ago

2mo newer
Grok-4.1 Thinking

Nov 17, 2025

7 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. Grok-4.1 Thinking is available from xAI.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Grok-4.1 Thinking

xai logo
xAI
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Higher FigQA score (78.3% vs 34.0%)
xAI
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
xAI
Grok-4.1 Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok-4.1 Thinking.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok-4.1 Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and Grok-4.1 Thinking is made by xAI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Grok-4.1 Thinking in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, Tau2 Retail: 91.9%. Grok-4.1 Thinking scores Creative Writing v3: 86.1%, WMDP: 84.0%, EQ-Bench: 79.3%, ProtocolQA: 79.0%, LMArena Text Leaderboard: 74.2%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Grok-4.1 Thinking?

Grok-4.1 Thinking is 1.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Grok-4.1 Thinking costs $3.00/M input and $15.00/M output via xai.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok-4.1 Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and Grok-4.1 Thinking supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok-4.1 Thinking?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $3.00/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok-4.1 Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and Grok-4.1 Thinking is developed by xAI.

Related comparisons