Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 leads on the public coding lane, 62 to 41, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.6
Updated September 25, 2026. Rank says Grok 4.6 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Grok 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.19 versus 61.37, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-5.2 only
- 14
- Grok 4.6 only
- 16
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
Supported: GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.6How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 leads on the public agentic lane, 67.9 to 42.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: strongerLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
41.0GPT-5.262.0Grok 4.6
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Grok 4.6 leads the like-for-like coding row.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 GPT-5.2 only
1 Shared
16 Grok 4.6 only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
ARC-AGI-2Reasoning
Normalized gap 14.2GPT-5.2:52.9%Grok 4.6:67.1%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Like-for-like- GPT-5.2
- 42.6
- Supported · #42/105
- Grok 4.6
- 67.9
- Supported · #8/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Grok 4.6 leads
Coding
Like-for-like- GPT-5.2
- 41.0
- Supported · #54/135
- Grok 4.6
- 62.0
- Supported · #14/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Grok 4.6 leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- GPT-5.2
- 57.9
- Supported · #38/158
- Grok 4.6
- 69.0
- Supported · #13/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Grok 4.6 leads · intervals overlap
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 60.6
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Grok 4.6
- 57.6
- #16/19
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 66.3
- #23/50
- Grok 4.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- Not ranked
- Grok 4.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 91.2
- #15/124
- Grok 4.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.2
- 57.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Grok 4.6
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 42.6Supported · #42/105 | 67.9Supported · #8/105 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads |
| Coding | 41.0Supported · #54/135 | 62.0Supported · #14/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads |
| Knowledge | 57.9Supported · #38/158 | 69.0Supported · #13/158 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 60.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 57.6#16/19 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 66.3#23/50 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 91.2#15/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 57.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.00875
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.6
- $0.005
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.1295
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.6
- $0.118
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-5.2
- $0.525
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Grok 4.6
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.6 has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-5.2Grok 4.6
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.2
400K
Grok 4.6
API model ID
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
grok-4.6
xAI Grok 4.6 release notesCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.2
Not published
Grok 4.6
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
xAI Grok 4.6 release notesDocumented inputs
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.2
Reasoning
Grok 4.6
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.2
2025-12-11
Grok 4.6
2026-08-12
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Grok 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.19 versus 61.37, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.1295 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.525 vs $0.2.
- Context tradeoff
- Grok 4.6 has the larger documented window (500K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.19 versus 61.37, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 leads the public coding lane, 62 to 41, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 67.9 to 42.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00875 on GPT-5.2 and $0.005 on Grok 4.6; repository review costs $0.1295 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.525 and $0.2. GPT-5.2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 has the larger documented context window: 500K, compared with 400K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence31 rows
Agentic
BrowseComp
GPT-5.265.8%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.247.3%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
GPT-5.246.54%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
JobBench
GPT-5.234.3%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.626.5%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.657.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.678.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.613%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.280%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.255.6%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
GPT-5.253.50%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.627 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.665.9%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.670.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.661.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.687.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.625.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.688.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.2—Grok 4.695.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
Math
31 public results · 1 shared
Watch GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.6
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 25, 2026