Grok 4.6 · Media / benchmark · Independent measurement
This evidence note covers “Artificial Analysis: Intelligence and Cost Evaluation of Grok 4.6” under stated conditions; its version, sample, and runtime limits do not support a universal ranking or current production guarantee.
Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked. Historical figures below are not current verified results.
Artificial Analysis rates Grok 4.6 at 61 on its Intelligence Index, tied with GPT-5.6 Sol and behind only Claude Opus 5 and Fable 5. The firm's interpretation is that Grok 4.6's advantage is not limited to static reasoning; it lies in its overall performance and cost efficiency in Agent scenarios such as knowledge work, customer-service tool calls, and terminal tasks.
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 61, 5 points higher than Grok 4.5 and 23 points higher than Grok 4.3.
GDPval-AA v2: 1,753 Elo, second only to Claude Opus 5; its confidence interval overlaps with those of Fable 5 and Qwen3.8 Max.
τ³-Banking: 50.7%, in the highest-scoring group and close to Qwen3.8 Max at 51.3%.
Terminal-Bench v2.1: 88.4%, at the same level as the leading models.
AA-Briefcase: 1,577 Elo, close to Fable 5-level long-horizon knowledge-work capability.
Cost per task: approximately $0.84.
AA-Briefcase averaged about 53 turns and 0.5B input tokens; the comparison Claude Opus 5 Max used about 103 turns and 2.0B input tokens.
Grok 4.6 is listed at $2 / 1M input tokens and $6 / 1M output tokens, with cached input at $0.5 / 1M tokens. Artificial Analysis considers Grok 4.6 more advantageous on output pricing and task cost than GPT-5.6 Sol at $5 / $30 and Claude Opus 5 at $5 / $25.
Artificial Analysis's results support the following usage judgments:
Grok 4.6's advantages are more apparent when a task requires multiple rounds of retrieval, source organization, customer-service tool calls, and long-chain knowledge work.
Do not look only at the list price per million tokens; also consider the number of turns and tokens needed to complete the same task.
Terminal-Bench v2.1 and the v3.0 version released by xAI are different versions, so 88.4% and 26% should not be treated as contradictory figures.
AA-Briefcase is a private evaluation by Artificial Analysis and cannot be treated as a public benchmark. All results should still be retested against your own codebase, toolchain, and long-task samples.
The figures, task set, reasoning tier, and client conditions apply only to the listed source and collection snapshot. Different versions, harnesses, or providers must not be compared directly; undisclosed parameters remain unknown.
For a reproduction, fix the model version, provider or client, reasoning tier, tools, task-set version, sample count, and collection date, and record failures, retries, and human corrections. Full steps are in the source notes below.
Artificial Analysis · Author not disclosed · Original publication date 2026-08-12 · Site edit date 2026-09-20
Open original sourceGrok 4.6
Download the Tabbit client to check model access
