Olmo 3 32B Think vs Grok 4.6

Model Markets Rankings

Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency

All rankings →
RankingOlmo-3-32B-ThinkGrok 4.6
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort#13 of 2267.6 score
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort#18 of 36$0.097 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort#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

BenchmarkOlmo-3-32B-ThinkGrok 4.6
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,299.5690% of row best · rating · olmo-3-32b-think; 95% CI [1291.25214421, 1307.87126458]; votes 5682; rank 2301,443.75100% of row best · rating · grok-4.6-high; 95% CI [1433.62910542, 1453.86294509]; votes 3453; rank 55
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark wins1 benchmark winOverall lead

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

FieldAt a Glance
Ai2 · activeOlmo 3 32B ThinkVerified Aug 28, 2026
xAI · activeGrok 4.6Verified Aug 29, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldOlmo-3-32B-ThinkGrok 4.6
DeveloperAi2xAI
FamilyOlmo 3 32b ThinkGrok 4
ModelOlmo-3-32B-ThinkGrok 4.6
VersionOlmo-3-32B-ThinkGrok 4.6
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2026-02-01
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window66K500K
Total parameters32.2BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0Unknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessOpenrouter (Standard)Xai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoningchat, generation, reasoning, tools

13 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Olmo 3 32B Think Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoning
Input price$0.15
Output price$0.50
Serving providers1
Canonical IDallenai/Olmo-3-32B-Think

Grok 4.6 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$2.00
Output price$6.00
Serving providers1
Canonical IDxai/grok-4.6

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Olmo 3 32B Think vs Grok 4.6 FAQs

Is Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3 32B Think and Grok 4.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6?+

Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.15 and Grok 4.6 is $2.00 per million tokens, so Olmo 3 32B Think is cheaper on this metric. Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.50 and Grok 4.6 is $6.00 per million tokens, so Olmo 3 32B Think is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6?+

Grok 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3 32B Think supports 66K and Grok 4.6 supports 500K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6 be self-hosted?+

Olmo 3 32B Think is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Olmo 3 32B Think is open weight; Grok 4.6 is not marked open weight.

Can Olmo 3 32B Think and Grok 4.6 understand images?+

Olmo 3 32B Think is not 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, Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3 32B Think is 33K and Grok 4.6 is —.

Do Olmo 3 32B Think and Grok 4.6 support reasoning and tool use?+

Olmo 3 32B Think: reasoning. Grok 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Olmo 3 32B Think or Grok 4.6?+

Olmo 3 32B Think has 1 sourced provider route; Grok 4.6 has 1, a tie.

Which offers better value, Olmo 3 32B Think 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.

Send Feedback