Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Sonar Pro
Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Sonar Pro does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
PerplexitySummary
- Grok 4.6 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Sonar Pro.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | — |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 200K |
| Max output | 500K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $3 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $15 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 1 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| SciCode | 56.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1130 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| CritPt | 19.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| DTBench | 97.3% | — |
| LMCA | 48.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 51% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | — |
| LMArena French | 1461 | — |
| LMArena German | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Sonar Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than Sonar Pro?
Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Sonar Pro does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Sonar Pro?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro lists at $3 and $15.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Sonar Pro share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Sonar Pro has 1.