Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok Build 0.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok Build 0.1 costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok Build 0.1 in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 39.1 to 22.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 48.8% for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and 2.4% for Grok Build 0.1.
- Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper at $1 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 36.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-04-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 256K |
| Max output | 128K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.3 (#67), Grok Build 0.1: 43.1 (#91)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 46.8% | 50.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Grok Build 0.1: 22.7 (#129)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 48.8% | 2.4% |
| Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 9.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.9% | — |
| OSWorld | 72.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 23.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1221 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,204 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), Grok Build 0.1: 32.2 (#77)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 3.1% | 9.1% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 60.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 76.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 46.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1462 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | — |
| LMArena French | 1465 | — |
| LMArena German | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Grok Build 0.1: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Grok Build 0.1?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok Build 0.1 costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?
Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1 better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 43.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok Build 0.1 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Grok Build 0.1 has 3.