Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 87.4
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.6
Updated August 12, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
4 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
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-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository 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
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
19 GPT-5.6 Terra only
4 Shared
1 Grok 4.6 only
- Shared results
- 4
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 19
- Grok 4.6 only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
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.
Coding
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 63.4
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 83.9
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 92.9
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 80.8
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- Not measured
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- 80.7
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Terra
- Not measured
- Grok 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 87.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 63.4 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 83.9 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 92.9 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 80.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 80.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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-5.6 Terra
- $0.008
- 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-5.6 Terra
- $0.136
- 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-5.6 Terra
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.6
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-5.6 TerraGrok 4.6
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.6 Terra
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogGrok 4.6
API model ID
GPT-5.6 Terra
gpt-5.6-terra
OpenAI model catalogGrok 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-5.6 Terra
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingGrok 4.6
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
xAI Grok 4.6 release notesDocumented inputs
GPT-5.6 Terra
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGrok 4.6
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.6 Terra
Grok 4.6
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.6 Terra
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGrok 4.6
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.6 Terra
Reasoning
Grok 4.6
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.6 Terra
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.6 Terra
Proprietary
Grok 4.6
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.6 Terra
2026-07-09
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2 vs $0.2.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence24 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.6 Terra20.8%SourceGrok 4.626.0%SourceGrok 4.6 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.6 Terra—Grok 4.657.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%SourceGrok 4.6—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%SourceGrok 4.665.9%SourceGPT-5.6 Terra leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%SourceGrok 4.661.3%SourceGrok 4.6 leads this result
cursorBench32
GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%SourceGrok 4.669.9%SourceGrok 4.6 leads this result
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on GPT-5.6 Terra and $0.005 on Grok 4.6; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 500K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 12, 2026
Watch GPT-5.6 Terra 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.