Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok 4.3
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | Grok 4.3xAI |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $1.25Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $2.50Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-10-13-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · leader | 1,251.37100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-6-search; 95% CI [1246.82915739, 1255.90736955]; votes 173191; rank 3 | 1,165.8193% of row best · rating · grok-4.3; 95% CI [1161.07351221, 1170.53848666]; votes 128393; rank 30 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-10-09-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · leader | 1,313.02100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-6; 95% CI [1306.75407253, 1319.29550756]; votes 26853; rank 10 | 1,229.2494% of row best · rating · grok-4.3; 95% CI [1223.34663531, 1235.13960477]; votes 27037; rank 78 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25-90f8d44da965 · overall · leader | 78.69100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-6-thinking-auto-high-effort · 9,651 output tokens / case | 69.2788% of row best · percent · grok-4.3 · 11,184 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-10-17-10-task-e9c76358afb2 · overall_score · unverified | 76.91100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 4.6 (high) · 28,423 output tokens / case | 65.8086% of row best · points · Grok 4.3 (high) · 7,563 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 3 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | xAI |
| Family | Claude 4 | Grok 4 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.3 |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.6 | Grok 4.3 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-05 | 2026-06-17 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| 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 | Anthropic (Standard) | Xai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Opus 4.6 Capabilities
Grok 4.3 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-5.4OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.4 ProOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.5OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.5 ProOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.7 FlashQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Grok 4.3 FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
Claude Opus 4.6 is $5.00 and Grok 4.3 is $1.25 per million tokens, so Grok 4.3 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.6 is $25.00 and Grok 4.3 is $2.50 per million tokens, so Grok 4.3 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
Both models have the same sourced context window: 1,000,000 tokens each.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
Claude Opus 4.6 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.6 is not marked open weight; Grok 4.3 is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.3 understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.6 is documented with image input; Grok 4.3 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has a sourced maximum output of 128,000 tokens; Grok 4.3's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.3 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Grok 4.3: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has 1 sourced provider route; Grok 4.3 has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.6 or Grok 4.3?+
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.