Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs o3-mini
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and o3-mini in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 67.1% for Grok 4.6 and 3% for o3-mini.
- o3-mini is cheaper at $1.10 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | o3-mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2024-12-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 200K |
| Max output | 500K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), o3-mini: 40.8 (#132)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 56.5% | 39.8% |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | 43.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1378 |
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 60.4% |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| GSO | — | 1.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 82.7% |
| CadEval | — | 54% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), o3-mini: 29.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| Cybench | — | 22.5% |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), o3-mini: 16.3 (#305)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | 3% |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | 22.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | 34.5% |
| CritPt | 19.7% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1366 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | 7% |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 68.8% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | 140.34 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 89.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 70.6% |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.6 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.9% |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), o3-mini: 28.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 18.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 76.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1396 |
| ProofBench | 51% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 96.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 12.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), o3-mini: 38.3 (#146)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 77% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | 15.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | 1364 |
| Confabulations | — | 17.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), o3-mini: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), o3-mini: 45.7 (#164)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1319 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | 1334 |
| LMArena German | 1431 | 1303 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | 1286 |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | 1321 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), o3-mini: 75.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1337 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 84.4% |
Long Context Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), o3-mini: 33.8 (#256)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | 1343 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 50% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), o3-mini: 50.3 (#182)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1337 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | 1286 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1320 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 61.7% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 50.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than o3-mini?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or o3-mini?
o3-mini is cheaper. It lists at $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.6 or o3-mini better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and o3-mini share?
33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and o3-mini has 51.