xAI Grok 4.6
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by xAI · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for xAI Grok 4.6?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by xAI featuring Colossus 200k-Cluster Real-Time Frontier architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
Frontier real-time web & social intelligence, complex STEM proofs, competitive coding, and deep factual synthesis.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$2/1M in · $6/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving xAI Grok 4.6
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster response latency with 140ms TTFT (140ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
xAI Grok 4.6 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (40ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 63.7% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
xAI Grok 4.6 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (370ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5
xAI Grok 4.6 is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 76.8% for xAI Grok 4.6.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Codestral 25.01
Codestral 25.01 is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.90 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Codestral 25.01 delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 is 10.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (100ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 74.6% for Composer 2.5.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-R1 is 72.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (1520ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3
DeepSeek-V3 is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V4 Flash delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 62.4% for DeepSeek-V4 Flash.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Fable 5
Both models share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens. In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (40ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (100ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (205ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 68.2% for Gemini 3.7 Flash.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (150ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs OpenAI GPT-4o
xAI Grok 4.6 is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (0ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna is 91.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.72 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (11.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
xAI Grok 4.6 is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (4.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 76.8% for xAI Grok 4.6.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Terra delivers faster response latency with 210ms TTFT (70ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 65.4% for GPT-5.6 Terra.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Grok 3
xAI Grok 4.6 is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (570ms faster than Grok 3). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 58.5% for Grok 3.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 91.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (11.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Mistral Large 2
Both models share identical input pricing at $2.00 per 1M tokens. In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (270ms faster than Mistral Large 2). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs OpenAI o1
xAI Grok 4.6 is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (570ms faster than OpenAI o1). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs o3-mini
o3-mini is 45.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (920ms faster than o3-mini). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct is 82.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (5.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 2.5 Max is 86.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.28 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.84 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (7.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (200ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
xAI Grok 4.6 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does xAI Grok 4.6 cost per 1M tokens?
xAI Grok 4.6 costs $2.00 per million prompt (input) tokens and $6.00 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for xAI Grok 4.6?
xAI Grok 4.6 supports a maximum context window of 512,000 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 65,536 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for xAI Grok 4.6?
Frontier real-time web & social intelligence, complex STEM proofs, competitive coding, and deep factual synthesis.