Model comparison
Grok 4.3 vs Grok 4.5
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.3 #31 (Supported); Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.3 and Grok 4.5 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Grok 4.3; 13 to Grok 4.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Grok 4.3 only
- 10
- Grok 4.5 only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 76.72 to 65.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.7 against 47.3.
Grok 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.3. That is roughly 2.4x on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 500K for Grok 4.5.
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 | Grok 4.3 | Δ | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok 4.347.3 | Margin→ 17.4 | Grok 4.564.7 |
| Agentic | Grok 4.3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.583.3 |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.342.4 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.378.1 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Grok 4.381.3 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.5Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4.3 | Grok 4.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.3$1.25 input / $2.5 output | Grok 4.5$2 input / $6 output | Grok 4.3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.3209 tok/s | Grok 4.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.312.36 s | Grok 4.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.31M | Grok 4.5500K | Grok 4.3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 29.2% | 51.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 24.1% | 45.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1085 | 1535 | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 43.86% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 12.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 53% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1323 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 40.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 32.6% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 81.6% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeSource | 47.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 42.3% | 72.5% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.3% | 54.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | — | 91.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.6% | 53.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GPQASource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 35% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.6% | 52.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 25.0% | 53.5% | Grok 4.3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.1% | 93.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.0% | 40.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 18.3% | 26.4% | Grok 4.5 leads |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4.3 or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 76.72 to 65.1.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.3 or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 47.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.