Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-5.5
- 81.6
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
GPT-5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 72.04 versus 64.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
| Category | GPT-5.5 | Grok 4.3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 81.6 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 58.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 85.0 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 57.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 47.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 70.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
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-5.5
Grok 4.3
1M
GPT-5.5
gpt-5.5
OpenAI pricingGrok 4.3
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGrok 4.3
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
GPT-5.5
Not sourced
Grok 4.3
Not sourced
GPT-5.5
Not sourced
Grok 4.3
Not sourced
GPT-5.5
Not sourced
Grok 4.3
Not sourced
GPT-5.5
Reasoning
Grok 4.3
Reasoning
GPT-5.5
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
GPT-5.5
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
GPT-5.5
2026-04-23
Grok 4.3
2026-04-30
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGPT-5.5 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceGPT-5.5 leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
GPT-5.5 has the higher public score estimate, 72.04 versus 64.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.02 on GPT-5.5 and $0.0025 on Grok 4.3; repository review costs $0.34 and $0.07; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.5 and $0.09. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Last updated July 30, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.