Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins for most use cases: stronger coding benchmarks, better writing quality, and a more proven production track record. Grok 4 offers advantages on context window (2M vs 1M tokens), price ($2 vs $3/1M input), and speed. If your workflow is heavy on large-document analysis or cost-sensitive at volume, Grok 4 is worth evaluating. For everyday coding and writing, Claude is the stronger default.
xAIBalanced
Grok 4
Strong coding value with 2M context — an underrated pick at this price.
VS
AnthropicPremium
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
Winner
At a glance
Grok 4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Input cost / 1M tokens
$$2.00/1M
$$3.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$$6.00/1M
$$15.00/1M
Context window
2M tokens
1M tokens
Speed
Fast
Balanced
Price tier
Balanced
Premium
Benchmarks
SWE-bench (coding)
54%
79.6%
Arena Elo
1,305
1,340
MMLU
87.5%
88.3%
How they compare
Which model wins for each use case — and why.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads SWE-bench at 79.6% and is the default model in Cursor and Windsurf. Grok 4 handles code but trails Claude on the most rigorous coding benchmarks.
WritingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 consistently produces stronger prose — better tone, cleaner structure, and more natural voice. For writing-first workflows, Claude is the clear winner.
Context WindowGrok 4 wins
Grok 4 has a 2M token context window vs Claude Sonnet 4.6's 1M. For workflows that regularly exceed 500K tokens, Grok 4's larger context is a genuine advantage.
PriceGrok 4 wins
Grok 4 costs $2/1M input vs Claude Sonnet 4.6's $3/1M. For high-volume workloads, the 33% savings makes Grok 4 more cost-efficient at the premium tier.
SpeedGrok 4 wins
Grok 4 is faster than Claude Sonnet 4.6 for most prompt types — a meaningful difference in latency-sensitive applications.
Which should you pick?
Pick Grok 4 if…
Cost efficiency at premium quality matters — Grok 4 is 33% cheaper per input token
You regularly work with very large documents that exceed 500K tokens
Response latency is a key constraint in your application
You want a strong context window for large-scale summarization or analysis
For most workflows, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger choice.
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
The case for each model
What each one is genuinely good at, where it falls down, and when we would steer you away from it.
Our overall pick in this comparison. Against Grok 4 it costs about 56% more per token.
The default model powering Cursor and Windsurf. 79.6% SWE-bench, 1M context window, and best-in-tier writing quality — all at $3/1M input.
Input
$3.00/1M
Output
$15.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Balanced
What people actually use it for
Daily coding in Cursor — debugging, refactoring, and feature implementation
Drafting polished client reports, strategy memos, and long-form editorial content
Answering research questions with up to 1M tokens of document context
Where it wins
Strong coding quality with 1M context at $3/1M input
Default model in Cursor and Windsurf, the two most popular AI coding editors
Best writing quality in its price tier — tone, long-form clarity, editorial polish
Where it falls down
Claude Opus 4.7 has a higher current premium coding ceiling
GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.4 are better picks when OpenAI computer-use workflows are the priority
Skip it if
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
Our verdict
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is stronger for coding and writing. Grok 4 is stronger on context window size and price efficiency. For everyday developer and content workflows, Claude is the better default.
Which is cheaper — Grok or Claude?
Grok 4 is cheaper at $2/1M input vs Claude Sonnet 4.6's $3/1M. Grok 4 also has cheaper output tokens at $6/1M vs Claude's $15/1M — a significant difference at high output volume.
Is Grok 4 good for coding?
Grok 4 handles coding competently but trails Claude Sonnet 4.6 on SWE-bench and isn't the default in any major AI code editor. For coding-first teams, Claude is the stronger choice.
Which has a bigger context window — Grok or Claude?
Grok 4 has a 2M token context window — twice Claude Sonnet 4.6's 1M. For very large document analysis, Grok 4 has a genuine capacity advantage.
Should I switch from Claude to Grok?
Only if context window size, output cost, or speed are your primary bottlenecks. For coding quality and writing, stick with Claude. For large-context analysis at lower cost, Grok 4 is worth testing.