Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.3/100
Margin
10.4pts
← winning
53.88/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #35 (Supported); Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok 4.20 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 13 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 28, 2026
Shared results
6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
27
Grok 4.20 only
13
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 2M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.3 to 53.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.2 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 77.4% to 60.9%.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok 4.20
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGrok 4.20
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin← 18.1Grok 4.2047.1
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4Margin← 7.3Grok 4.2070.1
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 2.0Grok 4.2067.1
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2053.3
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Grok 4.20

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.4%B 60.9%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 16.5
    CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%; Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 47.1%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 12
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 76.7%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputGrok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGrok 4.20233 tok/sGrok 4.20 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGrok 4.2010.33 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%47.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.92%38.36%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%76.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%4.06%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —51.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
AA-LCRSource 57.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —53.3%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source —0.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
GPQASource 89.9%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 13.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —88.5%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —31.6%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.3%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —50.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
CharXivSource 77.4%60.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13101252Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMMU-ProSource —75.2%Not comparable
ERQASource —54.1%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —57.4%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —65.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.20Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.3 to 53.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 77.4% and 60.9%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 67.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.20?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 70.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 28, 2026

Know when it’s worth switching models

The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.