GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.6
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2 | #18 of 2249.3 score | #13 of 2267.6 score |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #23 of 36$0.161 per LiveBench case | #18 of 36$0.097 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0 | #19 of 2242.6 score | #8 of 2256.6 score |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1verified-v1-2aa739d957fc · verified_score · leader | 86.1798% of row best · percent · GPT-5.2 (XHigh) | 87.50100% of row best · percent · Grok 4.6 (Medium) |
| ARC-AGI-2verified-v2-b5cb5ec6e8c7 · verified_score · leader | 52.9179% of row best · percent · GPT-5.2 (XHigh) | 67.08100% of row best · percent · Grok 4.6 (XHigh) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,412.4298% of row best · rating · gpt-5.2; 95% CI [1409.19172501, 1415.64592175]; votes 79073; rank 122 | 1,443.75100% of row best · rating · grok-4.6-high; 95% CI [1433.62910542, 1453.86294509]; votes 3453; rank 55 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 79.2196% of row best · percent · gpt-5.2-2025-12-11-high · 11,512 output tokens / case | 82.17100% of row best · percent · grok-4.6 · 16,154 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader | 78.0890% of row best · points · GPT-5.2 · 4,266 output tokens / case | 86.61100% of row best · points · Grok 4.6 · 15,575 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 5 benchmark winsOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | xAI |
| Family | Gpt 5 2 | Grok 4 |
| Model | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 |
| Version | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.6 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-08-31 | 2026-02-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 400K | 500K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Xai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
14 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
GPT-5.2 Capabilities
Grok 4.6 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs | Grok 4.5xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GPT-5.2OpenAI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | GPT-5.2OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.6 FAQs
Is GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
GPT-5.2 is $1.75 and Grok 4.6 is $2.00 per million tokens, so GPT-5.2 is cheaper on this metric. GPT-5.2 is $14.00 and Grok 4.6 is $6.00 per million tokens, so Grok 4.6 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
Grok 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. GPT-5.2 supports 400K and Grok 4.6 supports 500K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
Grok 4.6 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 5 protocol-matched benchmarks from 4 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. GPT-5.2 is not marked open weight; Grok 4.6 is not marked open weight.
Can GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.6 understand images?+
GPT-5.2 is documented with image input; Grok 4.6 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. GPT-5.2 is 128K and Grok 4.6 is —.
Do GPT-5.2 and Grok 4.6 support reasoning and tool use?+
GPT-5.2: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Grok 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
GPT-5.2 has 2 sourced provider routes; Grok 4.6 has 1, so GPT-5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, GPT-5.2 or Grok 4.6?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.