Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.6
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 56.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.6 costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 49 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 49 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher in 10 categories and Grok 4.6 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.6 to 67.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 82.9% for GPT-5.6 Sol and 31.7% for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 65.0 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 500K |
| Max output | 128K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 72.7% | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | 48% |
| CursorBench | 41.7% | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | 25.3% |
| SciCode | 57.1% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 89.4% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,177 | 1,508 |
| GSO | 76.5% | — |
| MirrorCode | 20% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 51.4% | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.7% | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,619 | 9,047 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 46.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | — |
| BALROG | 60% | — |
| GBAEval | 52.6% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1257 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | 71.7% | 75.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 93.8% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 32.3% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | 40% |
| EBR-Bench | 44.8% | 30.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 34% |
| DTBench | 96% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 59.2% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 161.66 | 156.44 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 37.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.1% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 82.9% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 83% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1474 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.5% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.4% | — |
Multimodal GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | 56.7% | 40% |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | 1452 |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1477 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1476 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1471 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1442 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1468 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1441 | 1404 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1482 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1457 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1448 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1972 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1250 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Grok 4.6?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 56.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.6 costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Is GPT-5.6 Sol or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 58.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 share?
49 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 65 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.