Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 54.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4 Pro costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 39 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.6 in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.6 leads 39.4 to 32.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierCode: 28.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 48% for Grok 4.6.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper at $0.66 / $1.98 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 54.3 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 500K |
| Max output | 393K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.98 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 52.4 (#34), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 28.6% | 48% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1582 | 1617 |
| SciCode | 51% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 66.2% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1470 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,403 | 1,508 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.6% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 47.3% | 65.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,285 | 9,047 |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 61.3% | 67.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.3% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 18% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | 34% |
| DTBench | 93.9% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 45.5% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.31 | 156.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 40% | — |
| ForecastBench | 56.1 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.6% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 50% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1423 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.6% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 59.5 (#31), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.7% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 52.9% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1464 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: —, Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1486 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1458 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1445 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1447 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 76.1 (#47), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1448 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1458 | 1454 |
| CL-bench Life | 13.5% | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1446 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1553 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1166 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 54.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4 Pro costs 3.0× 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 V4 Pro or Grok 4.6?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 52.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Pro does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Pro and Grok 4.6 share?
39 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.