Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Laguna M.1
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Grok 4.5 supported; Laguna M.1 not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.5 and Laguna M.1 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Grok 4.5; 1 to Laguna M.1.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Grok 4.5 only
- 23
- Laguna M.1 only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 52. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 83.3 against 45.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 83.3% to 45.8%. Laguna M.1 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Grok 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 500K, compared with 256K for Laguna M.1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Grok 4.5 | Δ | Laguna M.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Grok 4.583.3 | Margin← 37.5 | Laguna M.145.8 |
| Coding | Grok 4.564.7 | Margin→ 0.1 | Laguna M.164.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 83.3%B 45.8%Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 37.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%; Laguna M.1 scored 45.8%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.7%B 49.2%Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 15.5SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%; Laguna M.1 scored 49.2%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4.5 | Laguna M.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.5$2 input / $6 output | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.5Not available | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.5Not available | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.5500K | Laguna M.1256K | Grok 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGrok 4.5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | 45.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| deepSweSource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1539 | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1324 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 51.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 32.6% | — | Not comparable |
CodingLaguna M.1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.7% | 49.2% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78% | 63.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | 45.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| cursorBench32Source | 66.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Laguna M.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 40.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Grok 4.5 or Laguna M.1?
Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 83.3% and 45.8%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or Laguna M.1?
Laguna M.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.8 versus 64.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.5 or Laguna M.1?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 45.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.