Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Laguna S 2.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

76.72/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to Grok 4.5; 2 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
4
Grok 4.5 only
24
Laguna S 2.1 only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Grok 4.5 makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

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 and Laguna S 2.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Grok 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 30.0x on output cost alone. Laguna S 2.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 500K for Grok 4.5.

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 scores and score margins for Grok 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1
CategoryGrok 4.5ΔLaguna S 2.1
AgenticGrok 4.583.3Margin← 13.1Laguna S 2.170.2
CodingGrok 4.564.7Margin← 5.3Laguna S 2.159.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Grok 4.5B · Laguna S 2.1

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.3%B 70.2%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 13.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.7%B 59.4%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 5.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.5$2 input / $6 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.5Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.5Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.5500KLaguna S 2.11MLaguna S 2.1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGrok 4.5 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 83.3%70.2%Grok 4.5 leads
deepSweSource 53%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 45.7%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 51.7%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1535—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1323—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 51.4%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 40.8%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 92.4%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 32.6%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 81.6%—Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingGrok 4.5 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
SWE-bench ProSource 64.7%59.4%Grok 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78%78.5%Laguna S 2.1 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 83.3%70.2%Grok 4.5 leads
cursorBench32Source 66.7%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 91.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 72.5%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.1%—Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 15.4%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
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
Multimodal
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 80.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Grok 4.5 or Laguna S 2.1?

Grok 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or Laguna S 2.1?

Grok 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 59.4. 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 S 2.1?

Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 70.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.