Comparison page
Grok 4.3 vs Claude Opus 4.1
Compare xAI’s flagship Grok model against Anthropic’s flagship older premium tier.
Side-by-side pricing
The table uses the same example request on both models so you can compare flagship reasoning and agentic workflows without changing the prompt shape.
Input 1,000 / Output 250
| Model | Input / 1M | Cached input / 1M | Output / 1M | Example request | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grok 4.3 xAI's current flagship text model for reasoning-heavy and agentic workflows. | $1.25 | $0.200 | $2.50 | $0.0019 | xAI pricing |
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic's current flagship model for complex reasoning and analysis. | $15.0 | No public rate | $75.0 | $0.034 | Anthropic pricing |
When to choose each model
Grok 4.3
Choose Grok 4.3 when you want the economics or capability profile of xAI and you can justify the published rate.
Claude Opus 4.1
Choose Claude Opus 4.1 when you need the second option in this comparison and want to test whether it lowers spend without hurting the workflow.
Use cases
- • Benchmarking premium reasoning models.
- • Comparing two expensive but capable model families.
- • Choosing a premium agent model for a higher-stakes workflow.
If the prompt is noisy or repetitive, run it through the prompt optimizer first.
If the brief is too loose, use the context engineer to tighten the instructions before you compare models again.
For the broader pricing strategy, read the LLM cost optimization pillar and the cost-per-million-tokens cheat sheet.
FAQ
Which model is cheaper on paper?
Grok 4.3 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.1 on the current public input rate.
Why compare these two models?
They are both premium reasoning models, so the pair works well when the goal is quality first and cost second.
Should I factor in cache pricing?
Yes. xAI publishes cached-input pricing, so repeated context can materially change the economics of the comparison.