Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 38 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher in 2 categories and Grok 4.6 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 10.3% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and 67.1% for Grok 4.6.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-21 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 500K |
| Max output | 66K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1440 | 1617 |
| SciCode | 41.3% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 39% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1453 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.27 | 1,508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 29.3% | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 10% | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 10.3% | 67.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.4% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 53.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 0% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1441 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | 34% |
| DTBench | 83.5% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 37.6% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.13 | 156.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 26% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 13% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1433 | 1423 |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 94% |
| LMArena Expert | 1435 | 1467 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1427 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1427 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1443 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1420 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1559 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Grok 4.6?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Grok 4.6 share?
38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.