Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
OpenAI logo
Model A
GPT-5.6 Terra

OpenAI

71.13/100

Estimated · Public rank #12

90% interval 65.476.9

GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok Build 0.1

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

xAI logo
Model B
Grok Build 0.1

xAI

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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 Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Grok Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 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 Build 0.1

    Grok Build 0.1 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

    Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
GPT-5.6 Terra only
31
Grok Build 0.1 only
1
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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

Directional only
GPT-5.6 Terra
60.2
Supported · #20/152
Grok Build 0.1
45.1
Estimated · #84/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
GPT-5.6 Terra
67.0
Supported · #8/151
Grok Build 0.1
38.9
Estimated · #120/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
63.7
#14/20
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
69.2
Supported · #16/183
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
97.0
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
Not ranked
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
77.1
#15/48
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
87.1
#34/123
Grok Build 0.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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
$0.01
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.002
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra
$0.17
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.056
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 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
$0.25
Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1
$0.08
Fits in one request

Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost

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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.6 Terra

Grok Build 0.1

256K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.6 Terra

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI API pricing

Grok Build 0.1

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Provider availability

GPT-5.6 Terra

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

Grok Build 0.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.6 Terra

Reasoning

Grok Build 0.1

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.6 Terra

2026-07-09

Grok Build 0.1

2026-05-20

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.17 vs $0.056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.25 vs $0.08.
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 evidence32 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra20.8%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Terra77.5%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    Grok Build 0.149.15%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.0%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Terra85.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Terra95.4%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.6 Terra83.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-5.6 Terra0.8%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE-Verified

    GPT-5.6 Terra51.1%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    GPT-5.6 Terra81.2%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GPT-5.6 Terra57.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GPT-5.6 Terra32.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Terra90.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Terra86.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.6 Terra84.9%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GPT-5.6 Terra84.900%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-5.6 Terra68.300%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.6 Terra82%
    Source
    Grok Build 0.1

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok Build 0.1?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok Build 0.1?

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher for coding on the public lane, 67 to 38.9. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok Build 0.1?

GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 60.2 to 45.1. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok Build 0.1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.01 on GPT-5.6 Terra and $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1; repository review costs $0.17 and $0.056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.25 and $0.08. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok Build 0.1?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok Build 0.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.