Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

GPT-6 Sol vs Grok 4.6

Updated November 6, 2026. Rank says GPT-6 Sol is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

GPT-6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.09 versus 66.76, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

78.09/100

Supported · Public rank #11

90% interval 74.8–81.4

Model B
xAI logo

xAI

66.76/100

Supported · Public rank #23

90% interval 63.6–70.0

Shared results
9
GPT-6 Sol only
15
Grok 4.6 only
14
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: GPT-6 Sol 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    GPT-6 Sol

    GPT-6 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 65.2 to 58.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Grok 4.6

    Grok 4.6 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 69.5 to 57.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-6 Sol

    GPT-6 Sol 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-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    GPT-6 Sol

    GPT-6 Sol has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • 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

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.

65.2GPT-6 Sol58.6Grok 4.6

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

GPT-6 Sol 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.

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.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

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 v5.8 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-6 Sol
57.6
Supported · #35/131
Grok 4.6
69.5
Supported · #10/131
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Grok 4.6 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
GPT-6 Sol
65.2
Supported · #13/157
Grok 4.6
58.6
Supported · #22/157
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 9 public rows
Reading
GPT-6 Sol leads · intervals overlap

Reasoning

Like-for-like
GPT-6 Sol
71.7
#12/25
Grok 4.6
59.7
#20/25
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
GPT-6 Sol leads

Knowledge

Directional only
GPT-6 Sol
80.0
Estimated · #9/178
Grok 4.6
68.6
Supported · #20/178
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol
86.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Grok 4.6
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol
Not ranked
Grok 4.6
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol
Not ranked
Grok 4.6
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol
93.8
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Grok 4.6
66.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, 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.

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-6 Sol
$0.007
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-6 Sol
$0.13
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-6 Sol
$0.18
Fits in one request
Grok 4.6
$0.2
Fits in one request

GPT-6 Sol has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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.

Provider availability

GPT-6 Sol

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API, OpenAI Chat Completions API, ChatGPT Work, Codex

OpenAI GPT-6 Sol and Luna launch

Grok 4.6

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-6 Sol

Reasoning

Grok 4.6

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-6 Sol

Proprietary

Grok 4.6

Proprietary

License

GPT-6 Sol

Proprietary

Grok 4.6

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-6 Sol

2026-09-22

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
GPT-6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.09 versus 66.76, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.2.
Context tradeoff
GPT-6 Sol has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-6 Sol or Grok 4.6?

GPT-6 Sol has the higher public score, 78.09 versus 66.76, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, GPT-6 Sol or Grok 4.6?

GPT-6 Sol has the higher public coding point estimate, 65.2 to 58.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-6 Sol or Grok 4.6?

Grok 4.6 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 69.5 to 57.6, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, GPT-6 Sol or Grok 4.6?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on GPT-6 Sol and $0.005 on Grok 4.6; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-6 Sol or Grok 4.6?

GPT-6 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 500K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Agents' Last Exam

    GPT-6 Sol56.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    GPT-6 Sol33.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-6 Sol60.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-6 Sol22.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Shared source
    GPT-6 Sol52.0%
    Grok 4.657.0%

    Grok 4.6 leads this result

  • Hermes Index

    GPT-6 Sol44.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    GPT-6 Sol73.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    GPT-6 Sol7%
    Source
    Grok 4.61%
    Source

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.626.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.657.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.678.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.613%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • DeepSWE

    GPT-6 Sol68.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.665.9%
    Source

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    GPT-6 Sol34.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.627.0 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 3.2

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.670.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.661.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.687.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.625.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.688.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.695.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 4.0

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.641.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    GPT-6 Sol95.50%
    Source
    Grok 4.687.00%
    Source

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-6 Sol89.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.667.1%
    Source

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-6 Sol4.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.62.1%
    Source

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter

    GPT-6 Sol23.03%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)

    GPT-6 Sol94.57%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • ParseBench

    GPT-6 Sol68.85%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HealthBench (raw)

    GPT-6 Sol47.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    GPT-6 Sol53.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GPT-6 Sol60.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    GPT-6 Sol59.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GPT-6 Sol30.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.694.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-6 Sol—
    Grok 4.689.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    Shared source
    GPT-6 Sol10.1%
    Grok 4.651.8%

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GPT-6 Sol89.825%
    Grok 4.665.965%

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    GPT-6 Sol90.000%
    Grok 4.631.707%

    GPT-6 Sol leads this result

38 public results · 9 shared

Watch GPT-6 Sol vs Grok 4.6

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

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated November 6, 2026