Back to Text & reasoning

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.6

Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and Grok 4.6 using the same provider-sourced text & reasoning rubric. No mystery score and no invented benchmark ranking.

Facts checked September 14, 2026

Estimate your cost

Set your usage. Your estimate updates as you type.

Example: 6,000 input tokens for 10 pages, plus a 500-token summary. Page lengths vary; adjust the numbers below.

One run sends your input to the model once and receives an answer. Tokens are pieces of text: input is what you send, output is the answer you receive.

Advanced options
How this estimate works

Estimates exclude taxes, tools, cache storage/writes, free allowances and custom discounts. Image estimates cover output only, not prompt or reference-image charges. Quality modes differ by model. Unlisted settings are not treated as free.

Estimate your cost
ModelEstimated total (USD)
Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic$0.0085
Grok 4.6SpaceXAINo reviewed rate

Quick take

Claude Haiku 4.5

A compact Claude model for quick replies, classification and narrowly scoped assistants.

Best for

  • Data extraction
  • Request routing

Watch out for

Haiku 4.5 uses manual extended thinking, not the adaptive thinking settings of the newer Claude models.

Grok 4.6

SpaceXAI's frontier text-and-image model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, with direct web, X, and code tools.

Best for

  • Coding agents with live web or X context
  • Tool-heavy knowledge workflows
  • Teams already building on OpenAI-compatible APIs

Watch out for

Published regions are narrower than a generic 'global' label, and the base token rate doubles for long-context requests.

Compare the published facts

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.6

Values use each provider's own published units and limits. A blank means the provider did not publish a directly comparable value in the sources reviewed.

Text & reasoningClaude Haiku 4.5Grok 4.6
Context windowMaximum combined prompt and working context documented by the provider.200K tokens500K tokens
Maximum outputProvider-published response limit, where available.64K tokensNo published text cap
Knowledge cutoffLatest reliable knowledge date explicitly published by the model provider. Search and connected tools can retrieve newer information but do not change the model's built-in cutoff.February 2025January 2026
Input priceCurrent standard list price per million input tokens unless noted.$1 / 1M$2 / 1M
Output priceCurrent standard list price per million output tokens unless noted.$5 / 1M$6 / 1M
InputsMedia types accepted by the listed model endpoint.Text, imageText, image
Tools & agentsSelected native tools and agent-building capabilities, not an exhaustive list.Tool use, agents, vision, coding workflowsFunctions, web/X search, code execution

How to choose

Compare the job, not the hype.

Start with the job you need to complete, then validate cost, access, and policy details on your exact provider route.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic does not train on API data without express permission. Retention depends on the API feature, account agreement and cloud provider.

Grok 4.6

SpaceXAI says API inputs and outputs are never used for training without explicit permission. Requests are encrypted and retained for 30 days by default; team-level zero data retention is available with feature tradeoffs.

Frequently asked questions

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.6 FAQ

What is the main difference between Claude Haiku 4.5 and Grok 4.6?

Claude Haiku 4.5: A compact Claude model for quick replies, classification and narrowly scoped assistants. Grok 4.6: SpaceXAI's frontier text-and-image model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, with direct web, X, and code tools.

Should I choose Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.6?

Consider Claude Haiku 4.5 when your priority is Data extraction. Consider Grok 4.6 when your priority is Coding agents with live web or X context. Test both with your own data and provider route before committing.

Is this Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.6 comparison based on Cody benchmarks?

No. This comparison aligns provider-published facts for the Text & reasoning category. It does not claim a universal winner or combine incompatible third-party benchmark scores.