Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs o3
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok Build 0.1 costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok Build 0.1 scores higher in 1 category and o3 in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where o3 leads 34.5 to 22.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 9.1% for Grok Build 0.1 and 1.4% for o3.
- Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper at $1 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- Grok Build 0.1 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | o3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 36.4 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2025-04-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 200K |
| Max output | 256K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $8 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o3 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 43.1 (#91), o3: 46.8 (#64)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 62.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 58.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 81.3% |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| GSO | — | 8.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 52.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1408 |
| CadEval | — | 74% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 933.55 |
Agentic & Tool Use o3 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 22.7 (#129), o3: 34.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 30.8% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 45.2% |
| OSWorld | — | 23% |
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1144 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 65.4% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Grok Build 0.1: 32.2 (#77), o3: 32.0 (#78)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | 1.4% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 6.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 60.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 38% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 13.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1402 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 29% |
| DTBench | — | 84.8% |
| LMCA | — | 39.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.86 |
| ForecastBench | — | 62.5 |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 50.2 (#58)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 33.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1426 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 18.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 54.6 (#52)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 81.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 20.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | — | 14.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1402 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 41.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1214 |
| GeoBench | — | 74% |
| VPCT | — | 52% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 51.7 (#105)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1401 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1437 |
| LMArena French | — | 1430 |
| LMArena German | — | 1420 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1403 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1370 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1406 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1395 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 72.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 86.9% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1368 |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 53.3 (#6)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 88.9% |
| CL-bench | — | 17.8% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1372 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, o3: 63.5 (#64)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1410 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1359 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1676 |
| WildBench | — | 86.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1405 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than o3?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok Build 0.1 costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or o3?
Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or o3 better for coding?
o3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.8 versus 43.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok Build 0.1 does, with 256K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and o3 share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and o3 has 63.