Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok Code Fast 1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
26.4pts
← winning
38.64/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok Code Fast 1 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 0 to Grok Code Fast 1.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
21
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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, 65.07 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 Code Fast 1
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGrok Code Fast 1
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin→ 1.7Grok Code Fast 170.8
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapGrok Code Fast 1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Grok Code Fast 1

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 70.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 8.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. 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 Code Fast 1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGrok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 outputGrok Code Fast 1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1172 tok/sGrok Code Fast 1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGrok Code Fast 12.81 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGrok Code Fast 1256KGrok Code Fast 1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%75.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%70.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%36.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
AA-LCRSource 57.7%48.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
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%21.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%72.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%7.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-36.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%23.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%78.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1317—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok Code Fast 1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%41.4%Grok Code Fast 1 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Code Fast 1?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 79.6% and 70.8%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Code Fast 1?

Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.