# Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.6

> Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-lite-vs-grok-4-6
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.6 in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 22.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 97.3% for Grok 4.6.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 56.9 |
| Rank | 211 | 21 |
| Context | 1.05M | 500K |
| Input $/M | $0.10 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173)
- Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | 1,508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| SciCode | — | 56.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96)
- Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205)
- Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1447 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 156.44 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144)
- Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 51% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210)
- Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114)
- Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | 1263 |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134)
- Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1404 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168)
- Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1431 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262)
- Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1454 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135)
- Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1425 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Grok 4.6?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× 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 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.6?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.6 better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.6 share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.