Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between xAI's Grok 4.6 and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.
| Metric | Grok 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | xAI | Anthropic | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $2.00 | $5.00 | Grok 4.6 (60% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.50 | $0.50 | Claude Opus 5 lower |
| Output / 1M | $6.00 | $25.00 | Grok 4.6 lower |
| Context Window | 500k | 1M | Claude Opus 5 (1M) |
| Max Generation Tokens | 128k | 16.4k | Grok 4.6 |
| Tokenizer Family | xAI Byte-level BPE (~131k vocabulary) | Anthropic Claude BPE (~65k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Grok 4.6 when your engineering requirements prioritize xAI's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated xAI Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $2/M input rate.
Opt for Claude Opus 5 when looking for Anthropic's tooling integration, specific context window depth (1M tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $25/M rate.