whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.6

VS
xAI

Grok 4.20

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

👑 Editorial Verdict: Grok 4.20 strictly dominates Claude Sonnet 4.6 across all major dimensions. It is not only more cost-effective (blended cost of $3.00 vs $6.00 per 1M tokens) but also delivers superior coding accuracy (51.8% vs 0% on SWE-bench) and faster generation speeds (233 tps vs 54.3 tps). Unless you have platform lock-in, Grok 4.20 is the clear and optimal choice for all development workloads.

Model Specs

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/A
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00
Speed
54.3 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

Grok 4.20

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+)
51.8%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+10.1%)
90%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)2.0x cheaper
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00
Speed4.3x faster
233 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

Grok 4.20 is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6. Grok 4.20 has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 2.0x cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $6.00/1M tokens.

Grok 4.20 is faster than Claude Sonnet 4.6. Grok 4.20 generates 233 tokens per second (tps) compared to Claude Sonnet 4.6 which generates 54.3 tokens per second.

Grok 4.20 is better for coding tasks. It scores 51.8% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Claude Sonnet 4.6 which scores N/A.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard