Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGrok 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 91%Best | 54% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 13.4% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 54.2% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 60.8% |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 64.7% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 79.6% | — |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 78% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 66.7% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 49% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 30% | 54%Best |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 62% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 58% | 83%Best |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 17.8% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 83.3% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 69.5% | — |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 62% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 33.2% | — |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 58.3% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.9% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 72.5% | — |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 51% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 12.92% |
Medical admin work MedScribeCan the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | — | 86.88% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1676 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 72.4% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74.5% | — |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 6.7% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 84.9% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1521 | 1549Best |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Feb 17 2026 | Jul 8 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 leads Claude Sonnet 4.6 on 3 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, DeepSWE 1.1, Next.js Evals, Arena Elo (Code)). Claude Sonnet 4.6 shipped 141 days before Grok 4.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 91% vs Grok 4.5 at 54%. On DeepSWE 1.1, Grok 4.5 leads at 54% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 30%. On Next.js Evals, Grok 4.5 leads at 83% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 58%. On Arena Elo (Code), Grok 4.5 leads at 1549 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 1521.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released by Anthropic on Feb 17 2026.
Grok 4.5 was released by SpaceXAI on Jul 8 2026.
Grok 4.5 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Claude Sonnet 4.6 30% vs Grok 4.5 54%.
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGPT-5.6 SolGrok 4.5vsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Sonnet 4.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashGrok 4.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Sonnet 4.6vsMuse Spark 1.2Grok 4.5vsMuse Spark 1.2Claude Sonnet 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Grok 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Claude Sonnet 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 4.6vsKimi K3Grok 4.5vsKimi K3