Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus costs 6.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.6 in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 26.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 28.6% for DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and 48.5% for Grok 4.6.
- DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper at $0.27 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2025-09-22 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 500K |
| Max output | 147K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.27 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 42.0 (#113), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40.6% | 56.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1426 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 745.17 | 1,508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 67.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 26.4 (#133), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 19.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1426 | 1447 |
| DTBench | 81.3% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 28.6% | 48.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.44 |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 38.5 (#137), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1402 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 51% |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1467 |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.1 (#92), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1407 | 1420 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1422 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1480 |
| LMArena French | — | 1461 |
| LMArena German | — | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1404 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.0 (#106), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1431 |
Long Context Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.4 (#97), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1421 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.0 (#92), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1403 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1411 | 1425 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus costs 6.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Grok 4.6?
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper. It lists at $0.27 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Grok 4.6 share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.