Grok vs GPT

xAI's Grok and OpenAI's GPT are both closed families with published rate cards, and both have now been through the same hands-on app test. Grok 4.6 landed both follow-up edits in the Aug 25, 2026 test, at one of the highest costs in it. GPT-5.6 Terra led that same test, and GPT-5.6 Luna is the most faithful model we have tested (Aug 3 to Aug 8, 2026). This page is a routing matrix, not a scoreboard.

Last updated: September 2026

Quick Comparison Table

Scroll sideways to see every column.

Feature Grok (xAI) GPT (OpenAI)
Weights ✗ Closed, not released for you to run yourself ✗ Closed, API only
Live models Grok 4.6 flagship, Grok Build 0.1, plus Grok 4.5 and earlier rungs GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna, with a GPT-6 Astra tier at the top of the rate card
Context window 500K tokens (Grok 4.6), 256K (Grok Build 0.1) 1.05M tokens, max output 128K, all three GPT-5.6 variants
Multimodal Text and image in, text out (Grok 4.6) Text and image in, text out
Price per 1M tokens (as of Sep 2026) Grok 4.6 $2.00 in / $6.00 out under 200K, $4.00/$12.00 above, cached input $0.50 · Grok Build 0.1 $1.00/$2.00 (source) Luna $0.20 / $1.20 · Terra $2.00 / $12.00 · Sol $4.00 / $20.00, Sol's rate promotional through Nov 21, 2026 · above 272K input tokens, input bills 2x and output 1.5x · cached input a tenth of standard (source)
Headline public benchmark Vendor-published comparisons with each release Vendor-published evals, and TSK-1 is the controlled evidence below
What we found Both follow-up edits landed and all 32 form answers were saved, across ten projects and at one of the highest costs in the test (Aug 25, 2026) All 32 questions word for word and the only working scoring grid (Aug 3 and Aug 7, 2026). Terra built the best sign-up form and match tracker of the Aug 25, 2026 test, where Luna's first submissions failed
Best for Follow-up edits that land, at a high price Detailed requests and fast delivery

TL;DR: Both families ran in the same test on Aug 25, 2026, and the wins split. GPT-5.6 Luna is the most faithful model we have tested: all 32 questions of a real customer's sign-up form word for word, and the only working scoring grid that saves scores back into your workspace (Aug 3 and Aug 7, 2026). On Aug 25, 2026 Grok 4.6 saved every answer on that form and landed both follow-up edits, but spent dozens of failed build steps getting there, while GPT-5.6 Terra built the best sign-up form of that test and Luna's first submissions failed. Route by task inside Taskade Genesis rather than standardizing on one.

What TSK-1 Found

Both families ran in the same hands-on app test on Aug 25, 2026, and GPT carries earlier results from Jul 30 through Aug 8. The findings split by measure. GPT is strongest at following a detailed request and finishing quickly. Luna preserves exact wording and can build scoring logic that saves results to your workspace. Terra is the fastest in nearly every test it enters. Grok 4.6 landed both follow-up edits in that test and saved every answer on the 32-question form, slowly and at one of the highest costs in it. Grok Build 0.1 produced no app.

  • GPT-5.6 Luna: Aug 3, 2026: reproduced all 32 questions of a real customer's client sign-up form word for word, the only model to get all four of its builds word for word across more than one test. Aug 7, 2026: the only model to build a working scoring grid, 33 rows by 5 ratings, with every score saved straight back into the workspace. Aug 8, 2026: test winner on value, and the only model to explain its own design choices. Aug 25, 2026: its match tracker crashed on the first real entry and its sign-up form rejected the first submission, before later tests finished cleanly.
  • GPT-5.6 Terra: Aug 7, 2026: the first model to pass all five checks in one run, and the fastest of the test at 8 minutes 26 seconds. Aug 8, 2026: both builds carried all 32 questions word for word after three tests where none of the four came through. Aug 25, 2026: best overall match tracker and best client sign-up build of the test, with form to saved score working on the first try.
  • GPT-5.6 Sol: Jul 30, Aug 1, and Aug 25, 2026: added a sign-in screen the brief never asked for, three times in three tests, and did not say so.
  • Grok 4.6: Aug 25, 2026: built a working match tracker with every asked piece, saved all 32 sign-up form answers, and landed both follow-up edits. It spread the form data across ten projects where the leader used two, ended one build without saying it was done, and racked up dozens of failed build steps on each app.
  • Grok Build 0.1: Aug 25, 2026: described every layer, then repeated the same failed step hundreds of times until the test was stopped.

See the full evidence at /tsk/grok, /tsk/gpt, and the TSK-1 hub.

Grok 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Luna

Both models took the same 32-question client sign-up form on Aug 25, 2026. Grok saved every answer that day. Luna's form rejected the first submission, and its record rests on the earlier tests. GPT-5.6 Luna reproduced all 32 questions word for word on Aug 3, 2026. On Aug 8, 2026 it won the test on value and was the only model to explain its own design choices. Then came the Aug 25, 2026 miss: its match tracker crashed on the first real entry and its sign-up form rejected the first submission. Later tests finished cleanly.

Grok 4.6 took the full form on Aug 25, 2026 and saved every answer. It spread that data across ten projects where GPT-5.6 Terra, the leader of that test, used two. The answers are there, in ten places instead of two. Grok also ended a working match-tracker build, every asked piece in place, without telling the user it was done.

The finding in Grok's favor is the follow-up edit on the Aug 25, 2026 test. Both of Grok 4.6's follow-up edits landed that day: a ranked heroes page, and a text score field with next-step suggestions. Luna's standing edit record is the automatic-picking baseline of Aug 19, 2026, an app built in about 11 minutes and edited in about 6. Luna is faster and far cheaper. Both of Grok's edits arrived as asked on Aug 25, 2026. That is one test's result, not a verdict on the family.

Then there is the price of getting there. Dozens of failed build steps on each app made Grok 4.6 one of the slowest and most expensive results of the test. Luna was the value pick on every app in a five-model test of identical prompts on Aug 27, 2026. On published rates the gap runs the same way: Luna is $0.20 in and $1.20 out per million tokens, against Grok 4.6 at $2 and $6.

Grok Build 0.1 and the rest of the GPT-5.6 family

Away from Luna, the split becomes finishing versus not finishing. GPT-5.6 Terra is the fastest model in nearly every test it enters. On Aug 7, 2026 it was the first model to pass all five checks in one run: it built the app, took a form submission, put every answer in the right place, ran the automation, and answered questions about the data. It did that in 8 minutes 26 seconds, the fastest of the test.

Terra's weakness was wording, and it fixed it. For three tests, none of its four builds carried all 32 of the customer's questions word for word. On Aug 8, 2026 a change of setting turned that around: both builds carried all 32 questions word for word. The honest miss on the same day was Terra's premium setting, the worst value we have measured on the client sign-up form: a single page rewritten 19 times. Then on Aug 25, 2026, in the test Grok entered, Terra built the best overall match tracker and the best client sign-up build of the test: form to saved score worked on the first try. That is the leader that used two projects where Grok used ten.

GPT-5.6 Sol is the login-wall lesson. On Jul 30, 2026 it put a sign-in screen in front of an app nobody asked it to lock, and never mentioned it. On Aug 1, 2026 it did the same again. On Aug 25, 2026 it added a sign-in gate to the match tracker, the third time in three tests. We open every app and use it, which is how that was caught.

Grok Build 0.1 is xAI's dedicated builder, priced below Grok 4.6 at $1 in and $2 out per million tokens. In the Aug 25, 2026 test it produced no app. It described every layer it planned to build, then repeated the same failed step hundreds of times until the test was stopped. For building, route to Grok 4.6.

Choose Grok If…

Grok is the better pick in several common cases.

  • The app already exists and you need a change to land. Both of Grok 4.6's follow-up edits arrived as asked in the Aug 25, 2026 test: a ranked heroes page, and a text score field with next-step suggestions.
  • Every answer has to be saved, and you can tidy the layout later. Grok 4.6 took the full 32-question form and saved every answer (Aug 25, 2026). The ten-project spread is a cleanup job, not lost data.
  • Cost matters less than the edit landing. Grok 4.6 was one of the slowest and most expensive results of the Aug 25, 2026 test. If the edit is the deliverable, that is a price some teams will pay.

Choose GPT If…

  • The brief is detailed and the wording matters. GPT-5.6 Luna reproduced all 32 questions of a real customer's form word for word, again and again through August 2026, the only model to do so across more than one test.
  • The app has to save scores, not just show them. Luna is the only model that built a working scoring grid, 33 rows by 5 ratings, with every score saved straight back into the workspace (Aug 7, 2026).
  • Turnaround is the constraint. Terra passed all five checks in one run in 8 minutes 26 seconds (Aug 7, 2026), and Luna's baseline is an app in about 11 minutes and an edit in about 6 (Aug 19, 2026).
  • Value on a budget is the job. Luna won the Aug 8, 2026 test on value and was the value pick again on Aug 27, 2026, and its published rate of $0.20 in and $1.20 out per million tokens is the cheapest on this page by a wide margin.
  • You need the longest window. OpenAI lists a 1.05M-token context and 128K max output for every GPT-5.6 variant, more than double Grok 4.6's 500K.

The Taskade Angle: Route, Don't Standardize

Most comparison pages end with "pick one". The evidence for these two closed families points the other way: one owns detailed requests and fast delivery, the other landed both follow-up edits in the Aug 25, 2026 test. Serious teams run both and route between them.

Taskade routes across frontier models from top AI labs inside one workspace, with the AI allowance included in the subscription rather than a separate API account per lab. Paid plans start at Pro $10/mo billed annually, with Business $25, Max $100 and Enterprise $250 per month billed annually. You set the model per agent or per automation step, so a first build on GPT-5.6 Luna, a fast turnaround on Terra, and a follow-up edit on Grok 4.6 can each get the model with the result to back it. Leave a step on TSK-1 Auto and it adapts the depth instead: fast when the step is quick, deeper reasoning when it is not.

Four patterns that hold up:

  • Faithful model builds, edit model changes. First builds from a detailed brief on Luna. Follow-up edits to the finished app on Grok 4.6, where both changes landed on Aug 25, 2026.
  • Fast model drafts, faithful model checks the wording. A quick first pass on Terra, then a Luna pass on the steps where exact wording is the deliverable.
  • Every step lands in the same project graph. Whichever model runs a step, the result becomes shared workspace memory, so the next agent inherits context instead of re-deriving it.
  • Scheduled automations read from the same place. Model choice becomes a per-step setting, not a platform decision.

Routing Grok 4.6 to the edit step, where both of its edits landed on Aug 25, 2026, keeps the win and skips the cost of a whole build.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Grok or GPT?

They win on different measures. GPT-5.6 Luna is the most faithful model we have tested: all 32 questions of a real customer's client sign-up form word for word (Aug 3, 2026) and a working scoring grid that saved every score back into the workspace (Aug 7, 2026). Grok 4.6 took the same form on Aug 25, 2026 and saved every answer, and both of its follow-up edits landed in that test. In that same test, Luna's form rejected the first submission and GPT-5.6 Terra built the best sign-up form of the day. Pick GPT for detailed requests and fast delivery. Pick Grok when an edit landing matters more than cost.

What did Grok do in the Aug 25, 2026 test?

Grok 4.6 built a working match tracker with every piece the brief asked for, then ended without telling the user it was done. It took the full 32-question sign-up form and saved every answer, but spread the data across ten projects where GPT-5.6 Terra, the leader of that test, used two. Both of its follow-up edits landed. The cost of that result was dozens of failed build steps on each app, which made Grok 4.6 one of the slowest and most expensive results of the test. Grok Build 0.1 produced no app at all.

Which GPT-5.6 variant builds the best apps?

Luna sticks to the brief best. It reproduced a customer's wording word for word across more than one test and built a working scoring grid that no other model attempted (Aug 7, 2026). Terra is the fastest, and the first model to pass every check in a single run (Aug 7, 2026). On Aug 25, 2026 Terra built the best match tracker and best sign-up form of the test, while Luna's tracker crashed on the first real entry and its form rejected the first submission. Luna's later tests finished cleanly. Sol is the cautionary one: it added a sign-in screen nobody asked for, three times in three tests, and never mentioned it (Jul 30, Aug 1, and Aug 25, 2026).

Is Grok Build 0.1 worth trying for app building?

Not on our evidence. In the Aug 25, 2026 test, Grok Build 0.1 described every layer of the app it planned to build, then repeated the same failed step hundreds of times until the test was stopped. No app was produced. xAI prices it below Grok 4.6, at $1 per million input tokens and $2 per million output, with a 256K-token context window, so the rate card is attractive. The result was not. If you want a Grok model for building, route to Grok 4.6, whose apps opened and ran.

How much do Grok and GPT cost per token?

On published rates as of September 2026, Grok 4.6 is $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output for prompts under 200K tokens, rising to $4 and $12 once a prompt reaches 200K. Cached input is $0.50. GPT-5.6 spans a wider range: Luna is $0.20 in and $1.20 out, Terra is $2 in and $12 out, and Sol is $4 in and $20 out on promotional pricing OpenAI says runs at least through November 21, 2026. Cached input on GPT is a tenth of the standard input rate. Re-verify both at the source before committing, since prices move.

What are the context windows?

GPT-5.6 is the larger. OpenAI lists a 1,050,000-token context window and 128,000 max output tokens for all three variants, Sol, Terra, and Luna. Grok 4.6 has a 500,000-token context window, and Grok Build 0.1 has 256,000. Both vendors charge more once a prompt crosses a threshold: xAI doubles Grok's rates at 200K tokens, and OpenAI applies 2x input and 1.5x output multipliers above 272K input tokens. Plan long-document work around those thresholds rather than the headline number.

Are Grok or GPT open-weight?

No. Both are closed families. xAI does not release Grok for you to run yourself, and OpenAI does not release the GPT-5.6 weights. You reach each one through the vendor's own API or through a workspace like Taskade that routes to it. That makes the comparison a rate-card and results question, not a licensing one. If self-hosting or fine-tuning on your own hardware is the requirement, neither family is the answer, and an open-weight family such as DeepSeek or GLM belongs in the conversation instead.

Is faster always better?

Not by itself. GPT-5.6 Terra is the fastest model we test and the first to pass every check in one run, but for three tests none of its four builds carried the customer's questions word for word. A change of setting brought it back to all 32 (Aug 8, 2026). Grok 4.6 sits at the other end: it delivered the finished pieces, but dozens of failed build steps made it one of the slowest results of the test. Speed counts when the app also matches the brief.

Which one should I use for an AI agent?

Match the model to the step. Reach for GPT-5.6 Luna when the step has to keep exact wording, or when it has to build and save scoring logic. Reach for GPT-5.6 Terra when turnaround matters most. Reach for Grok 4.6 when the step is a follow-up edit: both of its edits landed in the Aug 25, 2026 test. In Taskade, different agents can take different models, all sharing the same workspace memory.

Can I use Grok and GPT together inside Taskade?

Yes. Taskade routes across frontier models from top AI labs inside one workspace, with the AI allowance included in the subscription rather than a separate API account per lab. Grok 4.6 and GPT-5.6 Luna, Terra, and Sol are all available. You set the model per agent or per automation step, so a first build and a follow-up edit do not have to share a model. Leave a step on TSK-1 Auto and it adapts the depth instead.

Final Word: Edits That Land vs Every Word Kept

Grok 4.6 is the edit pick from the Aug 25, 2026 test: both follow-up changes arrived as asked and its form saved every answer, at one of the highest costs in that test. GPT-5.6 is the fidelity-and-speed pick: Luna kept all 32 questions word for word and built the only working scoring grid, Terra was the fastest, the first to pass every check in one run, and the leader of the Aug 25, 2026 test, and Sol is the reminder to open every app before you trust it.

Neither is the winner. The winner is the setup that puts fidelity where the brief is detailed and a proven edit where the app already exists.

▲ Memory feeds Intelligence. ■ Intelligence triggers Execution. ● Execution creates Memory. Two closed families. One workspace. No single point of vendor failure.

This is the origin of living software. 🌱

Build with Grok and GPT in one workspace →

TSK-1 Benchmark

Same request, both models

In the TSK-1 Benchmark, every model receives the same app request, word for word: build a working app that keeps what people enter, runs an automation, and answers questions about its own data, then take a follow-up change. Here is how Grok and GPT did, tested inside Taskade Genesis.

Same test, same day ·

The family intake form, more models

Parents fill in a form on their phone with two to four photos, the teacher sees every family on one page, and then we ask for one more question on the form.

  • Grok 4.7Works

    Saved every answer and both photos, and the new teacher question landed. The time limit ended the build before its closing summary.

  • Grok 4.6Works

    Saved every answer and both photos, and the new teacher question landed. Its teacher page showed three sample families with no sample label.

  • Grok 4.5Works

    Saved every answer and both photos, labeled its sample families, and added a class assistant and a weekly automation. The new teacher question landed.

  • Grok 4.3Works, with gaps

    Saved every answer and both photos in under 4 minutes, but its form fields were hard to read and no link led to the teacher page.

  • Grok Build 0.1Works, with gaps

    The photos landed, but 4 of 14 answers did not save, among them a required one, while the form thanked the parent.

  • Grok 4.20Works, with gaps2 builds

    Neither build kept a parent's answers: one lost the child's name, and the other rejected every submission with no message.

  • GPT-5.6 SolWorks

    Saved every answer and both photos, labeled its sample family, and kept the teacher page open with no sign-in. The new teacher question landed.

  • GPT-5.6 LunaWorks, with gaps2 builds

    One build saved every answer and both photos in under 5 minutes. In the other, every parent submission failed on the photo permission question.

  • GPT-5.6 TerraWorks, with gaps3 builds

    All three builds saved every answer and both photos in about 4 minutes or less. One opened in a dark look where the request asked for cream paper.

One build per model unless a row says otherwise. Read it as a direction, not a final rank.

xAI · Tested Oct 2026

Grok

Interface
Strong
Task
Strong
Memory
Strong
Adapt
Strong

Best for: Follow-up edits that land

Grok gets there, slowly. Both of its August apps worked and both follow-up changes landed, which few models manage. The catch: it repeated failed steps dozens of times on the same requests. In October, Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.6 each built a family intake form that saved every answer and both photos, and in a later test Grok 4.7 built a reading list that saved and filtered every book.

  • · Grok 4.7Built a reading list with stat cards, an add form and status filters. A book added from the app saved, and each filter showed the right books.
  • · Grok 4.7Built the family intake form so it saved every answer and both photos from a phone, with the parent form open and the teacher page behind a sign-in. It kept no separate column for the time of each submission.

All Grok results →

OpenAI · Tested Oct 2026

GPT

Interface
Strong
Task
Leading
Memory
Strong
Adapt
Leading

Best for: Detailed requests and fast delivery

GPT is strongest at following detailed requests and finishing quickly. GPT-6.1 Sol, the newest, shared the top result of our September phone-form test. Luna preserves exact wording and builds complete apps efficiently. Terra is the fastest in nearly every test it enters. GPT-5.6 Sol builds wide apps but can add sign-in screens nobody asked for.

  • · GPT-6.1 SolBuilt a newer version of the family intake form in about 12 minutes: a four-step form, a teacher page and a printable summary page, with the closest fit to the requested look in its test. It did not save the date and time of each submission.
  • · GPT-6.1 SolBuilt the most complete Dota 2 match tracker of its test in about 12 minutes, with four tabs, a date filter, and win rate, KDA and MMR tiles. Before the first match was logged, its win rate tile showed two black blocks.

All GPT results →

Interface, Task, Memory and Adapt are the four qualities TSK-1 grades: how finished the app feels, how closely it follows the request, whether it keeps your data, and how cleanly it handles follow-up changes. Read the method and every published test on the TSK-1 hub.

Open a live app built the same way

These are App Kits from the official Taskade account, not benchmark builds. Each one is a working app with projects, agents and automations, the same shape every benchmark request asks for. Open one, then clone it into your own workspace.

Browse all App Kits →

Verify the comparison yourself

This is our take. We’re biased: we make Taskade. Read the alternatives from the source:

When you are ready, build with Taskade Genesis or browse live apps from the Taskade community.

More Competitors & Alternatives

View All Alternatives ↗

Cursor

Taskade Genesis vs Cursor in 2026. Cursor is one of the most-used AI-native code editors and ships new versions fast, the best-in-class agentic IDE for working engineers. Taskade Genesis is for the rest of the team (operators, founders, PMs), shipping deployed apps from one prompt with AI agents, workspace data, and 100+ bidirectional integrations included — and an AI allowance that comes with the subscription instead of a weekly usage pool plus third-party models billed at API list price.

Learn More

Windsurf

Windsurf is now Devin Desktop — Cognition folded the IDE into the Devin product line and windsurf.com redirects to devin.ai. Taskade Genesis ships a deployed AI app workspace with built-in agents and 100+ integrations, so anyone on the team can use what gets built, not just the engineer who ran the prompt.

Learn More

Lovable

The best Lovable alternatives in 2026, compared for people who ship business systems rather than codebases. Lovable is an excellent design-first builder that returns a React + Vite project you host and maintain. This page ranks eight alternatives by what you are actually building, states Lovable's real 2026 pricing with sources, and explains where Taskade Genesis fits: a running system with data, AI agents, automations, and app sign-in, with no deployment step.

Learn More

Bolt.new

Taskade Genesis vs Bolt.new in May 2026, after Bolt V2 (October 2025) Bolt Cloud + databases + hosting + Expo mobile, $40M ARR in 5 months, and StackBlitz's $105.5M Series B at ~$700M valuation. Bolt has the only browser-native WebContainers runtime in the category. Taskade Genesis ships deployed apps with AI Agents v2, 100+ bidirectional integrations, and Workspace DNA on one plan: Pro is $10/mo billed annually, and AI work uses the plan's monthly credits.

Learn More

v0

Taskade Genesis vs v0 by Vercel in 2026 — after the v0.dev to v0.app rebrand, Figma and custom design-system import, the built-in Git panel, and agentic workflows. v0 ships best-in-class React/Next.js and shadcn code with the cleanest Figma-to-code path, now entering at Plus $30/user/mo with no annual billing. Taskade Genesis ships full deployed apps with a workspace backend, AI agents, and 100+ integrations on one plan, Pro $10/mo billed annually.

Learn More

Replit

Taskade Genesis ships deployed apps with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations from one prompt - workspace-native, no IDE and no deploy step. Replit is a cloud IDE with an AI coding agent. Compare both side by side.

Learn More

Base44

The best Base44 alternatives in 2026, compared by what you actually own after the build. Taskade Genesis, Lovable, Bolt.new, Replit, v0, Bubble, Softr and Cursor. Base44's headline $16/$40/$80/$160 tiers are annual-equivalent rates - month-to-month is $20/$50/$100/$200. Taskade Genesis is Free Forever, or $10/mo billed annually for Pro with 10 seats and AI credits included.

Learn More

Emergent

Taskade Genesis ships deployed apps with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations from one prompt, with hosting in every plan. Emergent builds full-stack web and mobile apps on a credit model. Compare both side by side.

Learn More

Lindy

The best Lindy AI alternatives in 2026, compared by what the bill looks like once the work is real. Lindy repriced Plus to $29.99/mo per user in August 2026, bills monthly only, has no free plan, and its credits do not roll over. Taskade Genesis is Free Forever, or $10/mo billed annually for Pro with 10 seats and AI credits included.

Learn More

Imagine it. Run it live.

One prompt becomes a live app with agents, memory, and automations.