Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.6
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 56.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.6 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 47 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 47 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4.6 in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 81.6 to 67.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 70.7% for GPT-5.6 Terra and 31.7% for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
- GPT-5.6 Terra accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 59.2 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 500K |
| Max output | 128K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 57.7 (#19), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 69.6% | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | 41.3% | 48% |
| CursorBench | 41.3% | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | 1617 |
| SciCode | 55% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 78.3% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1484 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,951 | 1,508 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 40.1 (#25), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 58.2% | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 24.7% | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,343 | 9,047 |
| BALROG | 53.2% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 60.7 (#21), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 83.9% | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | 48.9% | 75.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 78.4% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 30% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 54% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1468 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | 34% |
| DTBench | 93.3% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 55% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 159.62 | 156.44 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 51.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 83.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 81.6 (#12), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 86% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 70.7% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.7% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 74% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1466 | 1423 |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 61.2 (#30), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.3% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 43.2% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | 1467 |
Multimodal GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 47.3 (#11), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1271 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.8% | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | 54.2% | 40% |
| LMArena Document | 1472 | 1452 |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 54.4 (#44), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1513 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1460 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1457 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1425 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1404 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 76.4 (#40), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1454 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Terra: 44.4 (#68), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1451 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Terra leads
GPT-5.6 Terra: 70.2 (#23), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1447 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1410 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1855 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1234 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Terra better than Grok 4.6?
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 56.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.6 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Terra lists at $2 and $12.
Is GPT-5.6 Terra or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (57.7 vs 58.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Terra does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Terra and Grok 4.6 share?
47 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Terra has 52 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.