GPT-5.4 Nano vs Grok 4.6
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | GPT-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #13 of 36$0.058 per LiveBench case | #18 of 36$0.097 per LiveBench case |
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-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1verified-v1-2aa739d957fc · verified_score · leader | 51.5059% of row best · percent · GPT-5.4 Nano (XHigh) | 87.50100% of row best · percent · Grok 4.6 (Medium) |
| ARC-AGI-2verified-v2-b5cb5ec6e8c7 · verified_score · leader | 5.698% of row best · percent · GPT-5.4 Nano (XHigh) | 67.08100% of row best · percent · Grok 4.6 (XHigh) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,372.8795% of row best · rating · gpt-5.4-nano-high; 95% CI [1369.01004978, 1376.72255426]; votes 58562; rank 163 | 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 | 75.2792% of row best · percent · gpt-5.4-nano-xhigh · 46,179 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 | 69.1280% of row best · points · GPT-5.4 nano · 3,831 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-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | xAI |
| Family | Gpt 5 4 | Grok 4 |
| Model | GPT-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.6 |
| Version | GPT-5.4 Nano | Grok 4.6 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-03-17 | 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-5.4 Nano Capabilities
Grok 4.6 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
| vs | GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GPT-5.4 Nano vs Grok 4.6 FAQs
Is GPT-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GPT-5.4 Nano and Grok 4.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6?+
GPT-5.4 Nano is $0.20 and Grok 4.6 is $2.00 per million tokens, so GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper on this metric. GPT-5.4 Nano is $1.25 and Grok 4.6 is $6.00 per million tokens, so GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, GPT-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6?+
Grok 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. GPT-5.4 Nano supports 400K and Grok 4.6 supports 500K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. GPT-5.4 Nano is not marked open weight; Grok 4.6 is not marked open weight.
Can GPT-5.4 Nano and Grok 4.6 understand images?+
GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. GPT-5.4 Nano is 128K and Grok 4.6 is —.
Do GPT-5.4 Nano and Grok 4.6 support reasoning and tool use?+
GPT-5.4 Nano: 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-5.4 Nano or Grok 4.6?+
GPT-5.4 Nano has 2 sourced provider routes; Grok 4.6 has 1, so GPT-5.4 Nano has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, GPT-5.4 Nano 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.