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
xAI logo
Model A
Grok Code Fast 1

xAI

34.16/100

Supported · Public rank #219

90% interval 29.339.0

Grok Code Fast 1 vs o3-mini

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

OpenAI logo
Model B
o3-mini

OpenAI

46.83/100

Supported · Public rank #150

90% interval 34.659.1

Decision reading

o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.83 versus 34.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 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

    Grok Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 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 Code Fast 1

    Grok Code Fast 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 Code Fast 1 and o3-mini are 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 Code Fast 1 and o3-mini are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-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
1
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
o3-mini only
4
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.

Coding

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
29.9
Estimated · #139/151
o3-mini
45.3
Estimated · #88/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
37.2
Estimated · #146/183
o3-mini
39.7
Supported · #134/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
57.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
48.4
#85/123
o3-mini
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.

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.

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 Code Fast 1
$0.00095
Fits in one request
o3-mini
$0.0033
Fits in one request

Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.0145
Fits in one request
o3-mini
$0.0682
Fits in one request

Grok Code Fast 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

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.059
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o3-mini
$0.286
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-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 Code Fast 1

256K

o3-mini

200K

API model ID

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Grok Code Fast 1

Not published

o3-mini

Not published

Documented inputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok Code Fast 1

Non-Reasoning

o3-mini

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

o3-mini

Proprietary

License

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

o3-mini

Proprietary

Release date

Grok Code Fast 1

2025-08-28

o3-mini

2025-01-31

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
o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.83 versus 34.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0145 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.059 vs $0.286.
Context tradeoff
Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented window (256K).

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 evidence5 rows

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Grok Code Fast 170.8%
    Source
    o3-mini49.3%
    Source

    Grok Code Fast 1 leads this result

Knowledge

  • MMLU

    Grok Code Fast 1
    o3-mini86.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    o3-mini77.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2024

    Grok Code Fast 1
    o3-mini87.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Grok Code Fast 1
    o3-mini93.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or o3-mini?

o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.83 versus 34.16, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or o3-mini?

o3-mini scores higher for coding on the public lane, 45.3 to 29.9. Grok Code Fast 1 and o3-mini are 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, Grok Code Fast 1 or o3-mini?

Grok Code Fast 1 and o3-mini are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or o3-mini?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.0145 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.059 and $0.286. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Grok Code Fast 1 or o3-mini?

Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs o3-mini

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.