Grok 4.6 wins on writing quality. Grok 4.5 wins on coding (94 vs 86). For most workflows, Grok 4.6 is the stronger default — finishes agent tasks in half the turns — cheap where it counts.
The safest Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Grok 4.6 is the strongest answer here for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $2.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Grok 4.5 is the cheaper way in for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5, at $2.00/1M/1M input against Grok 4.6's $2.00/1M/1M.
Grok 4.6 is the fastest of these for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Grok 4.5 leads on coding with a score of 94 vs 86 for Grok 4.6.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Grok 4.6 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Go with Grok 4.6 if you want one model to handle coding and reasoning — it targets long-running agents and multi-step codebase work.
Choose Grok 4.5 when your work is mostly fast and token-efficient coding agents — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Grok 4.6 for long-running agents and multi-step codebase work, Grok 4.5 for fast and token-efficient coding agents — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
xAI / Balanced / Aug 27, 2026
Finishes agent tasks in half the turns — cheap where it counts.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need a published SWE-bench score to justify the pick, or your prompts routinely cross 200K tokens where the price doubles.
Where the Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Finishes agent tasks in half the turns — cheap where it counts.
Best cost-per-solved-task coding agent — efficiency over ceiling.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grok 4.6xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 500k tokens | Fast | 86 | 84 | 88 |
| Grok 4.5xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 500k tokens | Fast | 94 | 72 | 84 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5: 86/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
xAI's long-horizon agent model — it finishes agentic tasks in roughly half the turns of its rivals, which makes it cheaper in practice than its per-token price suggests.
You need a published SWE-bench score to justify the pick, or your prompts routinely cross 200K tokens where the price doubles.
Buy it for turn efficiency, not for benchmark ceilings. On long agent runs, finishing in half the turns beats a model that scores two points higher and takes twice as many round trips.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4.6 page.
The value option for Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5: balanced-tier pricing, at 94/100 on coding. Worth starting here and moving up only if the output disappoints.
xAI's first coding- and agent-focused model — the first full-scale deployment of the 1.5T-parameter V9 MoE base, trained with real developer-session data from Cursor.
You need the highest solve rate per attempt or verified low hallucination — Claude Opus 5 is the safer premium pick.
The efficiency play among coding agents. Grok 4.5 wins on cost-per-solved-task and marathon sessions, not raw capability. If your agent bill is the problem, it's the answer; if quality ceiling is the problem, it isn't.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4.5 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Grok 4.6 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, reasoning, research — so it is the better default of the two. Grok 4.5 is the better pick when your work is mostly fast and token-efficient coding agents. Neither is universally "better": Grok 4.6 is aimed at long-running agents and multi-step codebase work, Grok 4.5 at fast and token-efficient coding agents.
Both models are similarly priced at $2/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
Both Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.5 have the same 500K context window.
Grok 4.5 is better for coding with a score of 94 vs Grok 4.6's 86 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.5 have similar speed profiles — rated fast. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
No published SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure, so it cannot be compared directly on the standard coding leaderboard. GPT-5.6 Sol Max beats it on DeepSWE v1.1 and Terminal-Bench 3.0. Prompts of 200K tokens or more are billed at $4/$12 across the entire request, not just the overage. Avoid it if you need a published SWE-bench score to justify the pick, or your prompts routinely cross 200K tokens where the price doubles. That is the main case for looking at Grok 4.5 instead.
Raw ceiling trails the frontier: 64.7% SWE-bench Pro vs Opus 4.8's 69.2%, with a higher reported hallucination rate. 500K context is half the frontier norm, and rates double at ≥200K prompt tokens. Avoid it if you need the highest solve rate per attempt or verified low hallucination — Claude Opus 5 is the safer premium pick. Against Grok 4.6 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (86 vs 94).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Grok 4.6 runs $32.00 (at $2/1M in and $6/1M out); Grok 4.5 runs $32.00 (at $2/1M in and $6/1M out). The gap is small enough that price should not decide this one. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Grok 4.6 for long-running agents and multi-step codebase work, with Grok 4.5 handling fast and token-efficient coding agents. Since Grok 4.6 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Grok 4.5 covers a capability you specifically need.