ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7

Claude Sonnet 5.5 comes out ahead, 65 to 61 on our weighted score, though Grok 4.7 is 25% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Released Sep 28, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI165.2
    • Price$2.00 / $10.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 5.5

  2. xAI

    Grok 4.7

    Released Sep 21, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$2.00 / $6.00
    • Context500K
    Full specs Remove Grok 4.7

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is our pick

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Grok 4.7 (61). It leads on capability and context window. Grok 4.7 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.

  • CapabilityClaude Sonnet 5.5Shared benchmarks: Claude Sonnet 5.5 82.7% · Grok 4.7 74.9%
  • Lowest priceGrok 4.7Grok 4.7 $3.00 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 $4.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5 1,000,000 · Grok 4.7 500,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsClaude Sonnet 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Grok 4.7: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7
CapabilityShared benchmarks50%8375
Price25%2127
Inputs & features15%8080
Context window10%6048
Overall100%65/10061/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Grok 4.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5.5AnthropicGrok 4.7xAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)165.2—
ECI rank#3 of 148—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions95.6% (best)92.7%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics88.8% (best)53.0%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics100% (best)98.1%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions46.5%56.0% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$2.00$2.00
Output$10.00$6.00 (best)
Cached input$0.20 (best)$0.50
Blended (3:1)$4.00$3.00 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 200K: $4.00 / $12.00
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial xAI API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)500,000 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens500,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · medium · high · xhigh
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-sonnet-5-5grok-4.7
API providers23 (best)17
ReleasedSep 28, 2026Sep 21, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJun 2026May 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5$40.00
  • Grok 4.7$32.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Grok 4.7 (61). It leads on capability and context window. Grok 4.7 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified), because Grok 4.7 has no Capabilities Index score yet.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official xAI API price). Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Grok 4.7 versus $4.00 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 and SimpleQA Verified): Claude Sonnet 5.5 82.7% and Grok 4.7 74.9%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Sonnet 5.5 95.6%, Grok 4.7 92.7%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Sonnet 5.5 88.8%, Grok 4.7 53.0%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Sonnet 5.5 100%, Grok 4.7 98.1%; SimpleQA Verified — Grok 4.7 56.0%, Claude Sonnet 5.5 46.5%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Grok 4.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 500,000 for Grok 4.7. Maximum output per response: Claude Sonnet 5.5 up to 128,000, Grok 4.7 up to 500,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Grok 4.7 accepts text, images and PDFs. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Grok 4.7 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the newest, released Sep 28, 2026. Grok 4.7 came out Sep 21, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Sonnet 5.5 Jun 2026, Grok 4.7 May 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons