Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83
Grok Code Fast 1
39
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.
Coding
+4.4 difference
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Grok Code Fast 1
$3 / $15
$0.2 / $1.5
44 t/s
172 t/s
1.48s
2.81s
200K
256K
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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 39. 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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 79.6% and 70.8%.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 66.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.