Skip to main content

Model comparison

Grok 3 Mini vs Grok 4.3

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Grok 3 Mini

xAI

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Grok 4.3

xAI

64.2/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 54.5–74.0

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 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

    Grok 4.3

    Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok 3 Mini

    Grok 3 Mini 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 3 Mini

    Grok 3 Mini 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

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Grok 3 Mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 3 Mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

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
Grok 3 Mini only
0
Grok 4.3 only
2
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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Grok 3 Mini
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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

Grok 3 Mini
$0.00055
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.0025
Fits in one request

Grok 3 Mini has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok 3 Mini
$0.0165
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.07
Fits in one request

Grok 3 Mini has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Grok 3 Mini
$0.071
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok 4.3
$0.09
Fits in one request

Grok 3 Mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 3 Mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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.

Grok 3 Mini

128K

Grok 4.3

1M

API model ID

Grok 3 Mini

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Grok 3 Mini

Not published

Grok 4.3

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Grok 3 Mini

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok 3 Mini

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok 3 Mini

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok 3 Mini

Reasoning

Grok 4.3

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok 3 Mini

Proprietary

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

License

Grok 3 Mini

Proprietary

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

Release date

Grok 3 Mini

2025-02-19

Grok 4.3

2026-04-30

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
Both entries list xAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
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: $0.0165 vs $0.07. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.071 vs $0.09.
Context tradeoff
Grok 4.3 has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence2 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Grok 3 Mini
    Grok 4.343.86%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Grok 3 Mini
    Grok 4.312.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok 3 Mini or Grok 4.3?

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, Grok 3 Mini or Grok 4.3?

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, Grok 3 Mini or Grok 4.3?

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, Grok 3 Mini or Grok 4.3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00055 on Grok 3 Mini and $0.0025 on Grok 4.3; repository review costs $0.0165 and $0.07; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.071 and $0.09. Grok 3 Mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 3 Mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Grok 3 Mini or Grok 4.3?

Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Grok 3 Mini vs Grok 4.3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.