Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok 4.3
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Grok 4.3 on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | xAI |
| Input / 1M | $3.00 | $1.25 |
| Output / 1M | $15.00 | $2.50 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.30 (−90%) | $0.20 (−84%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $4.89 | $1.13 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Cache capture | 91% | 76% |
| Warm TTFT | 190ms (−65%) | 280ms (−56%) |
| Quality index | 90 | 92 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 when it answers faster on warm cache hits, it captures more of the available reuse.
Pick Grok 4.3 when it scores higher on the composite quality index, it is cheaper once prefix reuse is priced in.
Grok 4.3 wins on both reuse-adjusted cost and quality here, so it is the default pick. Reach for Claude Sonnet 4.6 only when a specific constraint (modality, latency floor, or licensing) forces it.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Grok 4.3, answered.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Grok 4.3 cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, Claude Sonnet 4.6 blends to about $4.89 per 1M tokens and Grok 4.3 to about $1.13. Grok 4.3 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the larger window: 1M vs 1M tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 shows higher measured cache capture (91% vs 76%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.