Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok Build 0.1
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #24 of 4660.3 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #31 of 44$0.198 per LiveBench case | #1 of 44$0.0020 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #31 of 3847.3 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $3.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $1.00Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $15.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $2.00Xai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 256K |
| 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 Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 77.11100% of row best · percent · claude-sonnet-4-6-thinking-auto-medium-effort · 13,226 output tokens / case | 71.0992% of row best · percent · grok-build-0.1 · 980 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
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 Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | xAI |
| Family | Claude 4 | Grok Build |
| Model | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Version | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-05-29 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-08-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 256K |
| 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), Deepinfra (Standard) | Xai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Capabilities
Grok Build 0.1 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok Build 0.1 FAQs
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok Build 0.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $3.00 and Grok Build 0.1 is $1.00 per million tokens, so Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $15.00 and Grok Build 0.1 is $2.00 per million tokens, so Grok Build 0.1 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 1,000K and Grok Build 0.1 supports 256K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not marked open weight; Grok Build 0.1 is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok Build 0.1 understand images?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is documented with image input; Grok Build 0.1 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is 128K and Grok Build 0.1 is —.
Do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok Build 0.1 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Grok Build 0.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 2 sourced provider routes; Grok Build 0.1 has 1, so Claude Sonnet 4.6 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok Build 0.1?+
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.