Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok Build 0.1
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #18 of 4670.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #42 of 44$0.604 per LiveBench case | #1 of 44$0.0020 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #35 of 3840.5 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $1.00Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $2.00Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 256K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 81.18100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-8-max-effort · 24,171 output tokens / case | 71.0988% of row best · percent · grok-build-0.1 · 980 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | xAI |
| Family | Claude 4 8 | Grok Build |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.8 | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-05-29 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 256K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Xai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Opus 4.8 Capabilities
Grok Build 0.1 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Grok Build 0.1 FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok Build 0.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Opus 4.8 is $5.00 and Grok Build 0.1 is $1.00 per million tokens, so Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.8 is $25.00 and Grok Build 0.1 is $2.00 per million tokens, so Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.8 supports 1,000K and Grok Build 0.1 supports 256K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.8 is not marked open weight; Grok Build 0.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok Build 0.1 understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.8 is documented with image input; Grok Build 0.1 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.8 is 128K and Grok Build 0.1 is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.8 and Grok Build 0.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.8: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Grok Build 0.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Opus 4.8 has 2 sourced provider routes; Grok Build 0.1 has 1, so Claude Opus 4.8 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.8 or Grok Build 0.1?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.