Capability
59.7/100
field median 56.2
#61 of 232 ranked models
Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.
Follow model changesReleased Apr 30, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of September 10, 2026 · How the score is built
Share or export
Knowledge ranks #44. Particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
7 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #144.
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
59.7/100
field median 56.2
#61 of 232 ranked models
Price
$1.25input / $2.50 output
input median $0.97
cached $0.20 · blended $1.88
Speed
121tok/s
field median 86.5 tok/s
First token 20.43 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Grok 4.3 category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #144 of 152Percentile 5thWeight 22%3 benchmarksVerified | 26.9 | #144 of 152 | 5th | 22% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #131 of 151Percentile 13thWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 33.6 | #131 of 151 | 13th | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank #44 of 183Percentile 76thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 57.0 | #44 of 183 | 76th | 12% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score84.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap6 behind | WeightWeighted 15% | |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score71.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap25.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score43.86% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap29.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| ResearchClawBench | Score12.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1% | Gap8.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score41.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap45.4 behind | WeightDisplay only |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score85.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap6.6 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score91.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap4.1 behind | WeightDisplay only |
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Base entry
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Grok 4.3 ranks #61 of 232 on the public leaderboard with a score of 59.73/100. Its source-verified position is #46 of 130.
Grok 4.3 is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
7 of 435 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Knowledge at #44, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #144. particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
xAI · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Grok 4.3 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
Grok 4.3 ranks #61 out of 232 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 59.73/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 7 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Grok 4.3 ranks #44 out of 183 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 57/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Grok 4.3 ranks #131 out of 151 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 33.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Grok 4.3 ranks #144 out of 152 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 26.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
No. Grok 4.3 currently has 30 source-displayable rows across 435 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
Grok 4.3 has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Related resources
Last updated September 10, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.