Data as of November 10, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Aug 12, 2026500K contextxAI Grok 4.6 model documentation
Grok 4.6
Decision readingGrok 4.6 scores 66.5 out of 100 and ranks #24 of 214. This profile shows 34 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #11. API pricing is $2 input and $6 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.5.
Released Aug 12, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision snapshot
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
66.5/100
field median 51.2#24 of 214 ranked models
Public
#24of 214
Verified #17 of 79
Price
$2input / $6 output
input median $0.60cached $0.50 · blended $4
Speed
61tok/s
field median 92 tok/sFirst token 35.43 s
Context
500Ktokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #11. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
34 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Coding is its lowest eligible category at #23.
Source-linked · 34 displayable benchmark rows
Is Grok 4.6 right for your job?
Its place on the LLM Selector’s job rankings, the same order the job pages publish. Describe your own job to see where it stands for that.
Grok 4.6 has a newer version, Grok 4.7. Where Grok 4.7 ranks by benchmark score:
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
Category score record
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 #11 of 132Percentile 92ndWeight 22%7 benchmarksVerified | 69.7 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #23 of 158Percentile 86thWeight 20%9 benchmarksVerified | 58.6 | 9 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank #22 of 158Percentile 87thWeight 17%3 benchmarksVerified | 65.0 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #21 of 179Percentile 89thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 67.9 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 65.6 | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
34 of 890 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
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.
- Agentic7/7 verified
- Coding9/9 verified
- Reasoning3/3 verified
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following1/1 verified
- Math2/2 verified
Capability shape
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 4.6 category percentile values
- Agentic92nd percentile
- Coding86th percentile
- Reasoning87th percentile
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge89th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#11/132
- Coding#23/158
- Reasoning#22/158
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#21/179
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
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.
Coding9 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierSWE v2 | Score25.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 69.9% | Gap44.6 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score88.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap2.3 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| VulcanBench v3 | Score87.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.5 · 89.9% | Gap2.9 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| DeepSWE | Score65.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 79.0% | Gap13.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| CursorBench 3.2 | Score70.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 73.4% | Gap2.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Bug Hunt Bench | Score27.0 fixes | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 58.0 fixes | Gap31 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Extended | Score61.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.5% | Gap3.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score95.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap1.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
| CursorBench 4.0 | Score41.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 60.4% | Gap19 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score78.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap9 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 3.0 | Score26.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42.7% | Gap16.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Terminal-Bench 4.1 | Score19.70% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 65.80% | Gap46.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| APEX-Agents | Score57.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Hy4 · 75.2% | Gap17.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ApprenticeBenchApprenticeBench: end-to-end computer use, continual learning, and long-horizon agency on a real accounts-payable job | Score13% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 72% | Gap59 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| CWE-bench v1 | Score57.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 71.0% | Gap14 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| MazeBenchMazeBench: visual spatial reasoning in a 3D open world | Score1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 23% | Gap22 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Reasoning3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score67.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95% | Gap27.9 behind | Weight15% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3 | Score2.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 65.7% | Gap63.6 behind | Weight15% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| ARC-AGI-1ARC-AGI-1 Semi-Private Evaluation | Score87.00% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 98.50% | Gap11.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score89.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap3 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score94.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap0.8 behind | Weight2% ref. weight |
Inst. Following1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection, attack success at 15 attempts | Score51.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Carbon · 0.0% | Gap51.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score65.965% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 95.088% | Gap29.1 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score31.707% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 100.000% | Gap68.3 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
External signals10 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYT ConnectionsNYT Connections LLM Benchmark (extended version) | Score80.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 98.6% | Gap18.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Landing Page Arena | Score1401 | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6.1 Sol · 1681 | Gap280 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Code2Video | Score1450 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 1585 | Gap135 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| BabaIsBenchBabaIsBench (Baba Is You intro levels, pass@1) | Score96% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 100% | Gap4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Chess PuzzlesChess Puzzles (Epoch AI) | Score33.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 79.0% | Gap46 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Mystery Game PuzzlesMystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI) | Score34.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 90.0% | Gap56 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Furniture AssemblyFurniture Assembly Benchmark (Epoch AI) | Score40.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 90.0% | Gap50 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| EBR-benchEarthborne Rangers (EBR-bench) | Score30.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 90.5% | Gap60 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| MirrorCodeMirrorCode (Epoch AI and METR) | Score41.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9% | Gap37.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Epoch Automation Reports | Score59.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65.3% | Gap6.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
What it costs to get this score
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.
Grok 4.6 · 66.5 score · $4 blended per million tokens
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
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- grok-4.6xAI Grok 4.6 release notes
- Context window
- 500KxAI Grok 4.6 release notes
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- text, imagexAI model page for grok-4.6
- Output modalities
- textxAI model page for grok-4.6
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Available through the xAI API, Grok Build, Cursor, and supported model gateways. The API accepts text and image input and returns text.
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Superseded
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Published at $0.50 per million cached input tokensxAI Grok 4.6 release notes
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Grok 4.6 ranks #24 of 214 on the public leaderboard with a score of 66.47/100. Its source-verified position is #17 of 79.
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary model with a 500K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Available through the xAI API, Grok Build, Cursor, and supported model gateways. The API accepts text and image input and returns text.
Official exact-value snapshot from xAI's August 12, 2026 Grok 4.6 documentation and launch post, Cursor's live CursorBench 3.2 leaderboard, the official Terminal-Bench 3.0 leaderboard, and Bug Hunt Bench's blind-graded production-repository evaluation. Grok 4.6 is the successor to Grok 4.5, with a 500K-token context window and low, medium, high, or xhigh reasoning effort. We store xAI's published High results for DeepSWE 1.1, FrontierCode 1.1 Extended, and APEX-Agents; Cursor's Extra High row; Terminal-Bench's Grok Build row; and Bug Hunt Bench's verified xhigh ceiling. These results stay display-only because each depends on an evaluation or agent harness. The composite intelligence, GDPVal v2, APEX-SWE, professional-work, and legal-agent rows stay outside the core schema rather than being collapsed into non-equivalent metrics.
Its explicit predecessor is Grok 4.5. 34 of 890 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #11, while its lowest eligible position is Coding at #23. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated November 10, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Where to run Grok 4.6 by API
OpenRouter is the one host we track that publishes a per-token price for it. Prices read from each host’s own pages on October 20, 2026.
| Host | Input /1M | Output /1M | Cached /1M | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenRouter | $2.00 | $6.00 | $0.50 | 500K |
Ask your AI, from current BenchLM data
Where does Grok 4.6 rank right now, and what does it cost?
Questions
How does Grok 4.6 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Grok 4.6 ranks #24 out of 214 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 66.47/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 34 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Grok 4.6 good for knowledge and understanding?
Grok 4.6 ranks #21 out of 179 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 67.9/100. 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.
Is Grok 4.6 good for coding and programming?
Grok 4.6 ranks #23 out of 158 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 58.6/100. 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.
Is Grok 4.6 good for mathematics?
Grok 4.6 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Grok 4.6 good for reasoning and logic?
Grok 4.6 ranks #22 out of 158 eligible models for reasoning and logic, with a public category score of 65/100. 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.
Is Grok 4.6 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Grok 4.6 ranks #11 out of 132 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 69.7/100. 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.
Is Grok 4.6 good for instruction following?
Grok 4.6 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for instruction following, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Does Grok 4.6 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Grok 4.6 currently has 52 source-displayable rows. 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.
What is the context window size of Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 has a documented context window of 500K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.