Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok 4.3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
0.0pts
winning →
65.1/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Grok 4.3 #31 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok 4.3 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 9 to Grok 4.3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
16
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
17
Grok 4.3 only
9
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.6 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.3 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.1 versus 65.07. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Grok 4.3's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 78.1 against 77.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 49% to 35%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.3. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok 4.3
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGrok 4.3
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin 23.6Grok 4.342.4
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin 21.8Grok 4.347.3
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4Margin 0.7Grok 4.378.1
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapGrok 4.3Not measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapGrok 4.3Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.381.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Grok 4.3
  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 35%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 14
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Grok 4.3 scored 35%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 90.1%
    Winner: Grok 4.3Δ 0.2
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; Grok 4.3 scored 90.1%. Grok 4.3 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGrok 4.3$1.25 input / $2.5 outputGrok 4.3 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGrok 4.3209 tok/sGrok 4.3 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGrok 4.312.36 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGrok 4.31MGrok 4.3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%97.7%Grok 4.3 leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%43.86%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 29.2%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 24.1%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 17.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1085Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 12.4%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%47.3%Grok 4.3 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 47.3%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 42.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
AA-LCRSource 57.7%64.3%Grok 4.3 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%8.0%Grok 4.3 leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
GPQASource 89.9%90.1%Grok 4.3 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%Not comparable
HLESource 49%35%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%37.6%Grok 4.3 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%90.1%Grok 4.3 leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%35.0%Grok 4.3 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%18.3%Grok 4.3 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%34.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%25.0%Grok 4.3 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%Not comparable
MultimodalGrok 4.3 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
CharXivSource 77.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%78.1%Grok 4.3 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141225Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMMU-ProSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Grok 4.3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%81.3%Grok 4.3 leads
IFBenchSource 81.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.3?

Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.1 to 65.07. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 49% and 35%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.3?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 42.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.3?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 47.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.3?

Grok 4.3 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.1 versus 77.4. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.