Model comparison
GPT-5.4 nano vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 35 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.4 nano scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.6 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 5.7% for GPT-5.4 nano and 67.1% for Grok 4.6.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.9 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-17 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 500K |
| Max output | 128K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 43.6 (#84), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 46.9% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 49.2% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1405 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,005 | 1,508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: —, Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 23.7 (#173), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.7% | 67.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 51.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 9.3% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1381 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 9% | 34% |
| DTBench | 80.3% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 36.9% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.81 | 156.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 39.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 80% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| ForecastBench | 57.3 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 40.9 (#88), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 12.2% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 5% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1406 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 25.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 6.3% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.9 (#103), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 78.5% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 11.7% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1396 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.1% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 36.7 (#78), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1196 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 48.6 (#140), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1392 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1396 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1367 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1343 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1320 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1363 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1371 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 71.9 (#144), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1362 | 1431 |
Long Context Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#137), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1366 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 55.7 (#142), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1372 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1314 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1382 | 1425 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.4 nano better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 nano or Grok 4.6?
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is GPT-5.4 nano or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 nano and Grok 4.6 share?
35 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 nano has 40 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.