Updated November 10, 2026. Rank says Grok 4.6 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Grok 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 66.47 versus 59.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
GPT-5.2: $1.75 input / $14 output
Grok 4.6: $2 input / $6 output
GPT-5.2: 400K
Grok 4.6: 500K
GPT-5.2: December 11, 2025
Grok 4.6: August 12, 2026
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the higher public coding point estimate, 58.6 to 37.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 69.7 to 44.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 has the larger documented context window.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Grok 4.6 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
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 14.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 1.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 0.0Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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.
| Category | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 44.9Supported · #61/132 | 69.7Supported · #11/132 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads |
| Coding | 37.4Supported · #78/158 | 58.6Supported · #23/158 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads |
| Reasoning | 50.2Supported · #52/158 | 65.0Supported · #22/158 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 58.4Supported · #52/179 | 67.9Supported · #21/179 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Grok 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 58.7Estimated · #40/67 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 92.6#20/157 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 66.5Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 65.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.6 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
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.
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.2
400K
Grok 4.6
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
grok-4.6
xAI Grok 4.6 release notesA 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 notesGPT-5.2
text, image
OpenAI model page for gpt-5.2Grok 4.6
text, image
xAI model page for grok-4.6GPT-5.2
Grok 4.6
GPT-5.2
Not sourced
Grok 4.6
Not sourced
GPT-5.2
Reasoning
Grok 4.6
Reasoning
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
GPT-5.2
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
GPT-5.2
2025-12-11
Grok 4.6
2026-08-12
Grok 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 66.47 versus 59.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Grok 4.6 has the higher public coding point estimate, 58.6 to 37.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Grok 4.6 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 69.7 to 44.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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.
Grok 4.6 has the larger documented context window: 500K, compared with 400K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
LifeVal
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
We-Math
Not directly comparable
DynaMath
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Not directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Not directly comparable
CountBench
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
V*
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
AIME 2025
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-5.2 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGrok 4.6 leads this result
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 10, 2026
