UAB
Home/Compare
Compare
Live · updated continuously
Compare · pick a model

Compare the models people actually argue about.

Use shared tests, visible gaps, and close-call warnings before turning a benchmark lead into a public claim.
Selected models · 1
Shared benchmarks · 68
Current leader · Grok 4
Compare controls

Keep the recommendation honest.

Use case and source filter stay visible up top. Edits, saves, follows, and links stay available without running the page.

Current frameBest for this use caseCoding copilot · All public sources
What should win?
Preset

Keep the same models, change the use case, and recompute the recommendation without resetting the page.

Sources
Models to compare

Keep the compare set tight. Add one model at a time, then prune aggressively.

1 / 6 models
Workspace utilities

Save, follow, or copy this exact setup only after the comparison looks right.

Grok 4
Save or share this workspacefollow it, copy it, or reopen it later
Open reportOpen workspaces
Compare · Coding copilot · best for this use case

Grok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.

Grok 4no clear runner-up
Verified and stable

The current evidence supports a shortlist, not a single winner.

Shared tests
68
Close calls
0
Sources
All public
Open evidence pageInspect disagreement
Decision detail

Read this page as a workspace for choosing between top models, not as a universal crown. The current frame is Coding copilot under best for this use case.

Why the leader is ahead
Reasoning / math / science · Long context
Where the evidence is thin
0 close-call benchmarks and 46 missing missing leader rows keep this from reading as settled.
What to do next
Inspect decisive benchmarks first, then open the disagreement page or head-to-head pages if the top line still feels too narrow.
Open evidence pageInspect benchmark disagreement
68 of 114 benchmarks
Text Arena
AR · rating
Text · Chat / text
1,41072.9%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,410
Percentile
72.9%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Vision Arena
AR · rating
Vision · Vision understanding
1,18250.5%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,182
Percentile
50.5%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Search Arena
AR · rating
Search · Search / tool use
1,1216.7%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,121
Percentile
6.7%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-search
Source row
n/a
Overall
LB · %
Text · Professional reasoning
62%51.9%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
62%
Percentile
51.9%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Reasoning
LB · %
Text · Reasoning / math / science
79.1%75%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
79.1%
Percentile
75%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Coding
LB · %
Code · Coding
73.1%47.2%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
73.1%
Percentile
47.2%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Agentic coding
LB · %
Code · Coding
30%23.1%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
30%
Percentile
23.1%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Mathematics
LB · %
Text · Reasoning / math / science
83%63.9%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
83%
Percentile
63.9%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Data analysis
LB · %
Text · Professional reasoning
63.4%64.8%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
63.4%
Percentile
64.8%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Language
LB · %
Text · Chat / text
76.4%62%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
76.4%
Percentile
62%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Instruction following
LB · %
Text · Chat / text
29.1%30.6%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
29.1%
Percentile
30.6%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
Theory of mind
LB · %
Text · Reasoning / math / science
61.5%48.1%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
61.5%
Percentile
48.1%
Last updated
archived
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
grok-4-0709
Source row
n/a
1-12 of 68
Page 1 of 6
Decisive benchmarks

What is doing the visible work

No decisive benchmark
The shared tests are too split or too sparse for a clean separator.
Decision pressure

What changes the winner

Grok 4
46 visible benchmark gaps still leave room for the result to move.
Coverage gaps

Where evidence is missing

Grok 4
Missing visible evidence on this compare surface
46
Preset interpretation

How this weighting reads the field

The current decision mode is grounded in the Coding copilot preset. This keeps the compare page connected to a visible use case instead of an unspoken “overall winner” claim.

score = 1.45 × coding + 1.05 × reasoning math science + 0.80 × long contextcoverage floor = 55% · recency window = 120 days
Grok 4
xAI
77.1%
Share or publish this compare resultlinks, copy, and advanced framings
Share this report

Share the recommendation with the source data attached.

Use the report for the full source trail, or the card image when the post needs a clean preview.

Model compareGrok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.

0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.

Report/artifacts/compare?models=grok-4&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Card image/api/og?kind=compare&models=grok-4&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Public links

Open or copy the stable surfaces

The report is the canonical source page. The card image is the compact preview for embeds, screenshots, and social cards.

Open reportOpen card preview
Copy-ready text

Use the exact public framing

Each copy action keeps the recommendation attached to source data instead of forcing you into a blank composer.

Advanced framings and X composerNeutral, contrarian, open-model, and skeptical variants
Model compare

Pick the voice before you post

Use the framing variants only when you need them. The report and the public copy actions above should handle most cases.

Neutral analystLead with the recommendation, then attach the reason and warning.Grok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
ContrarianPush against the easy read and keep the strongest alternative live.Contrarian take: Grok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
Open-model angleBias the framing toward open weights and source transparency.Open-model angle: Model compare · Grok 4
Don't trust the headlineLead with the warning before you let the claim travel.Don't trust the headline: Model compare · Grok 4
X composer

Compose a post that keeps the warning attached

The post shell always exposes the recommendation, why, warning, source link, and an optional discussion question.

HeadlineGrok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
WhyThe visible source data changed enough to change the recommendation.
Warning0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.
Source link/artifacts/compare?models=grok-4&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
PreviewOver 280
Grok 4 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
The visible source data changed enough to change the recommendation.
Warning: 0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.
Source data: /artifacts/compare?models=grok-4&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Open in XOpen card preview
Reading guide

How to read this workspace

Who wins most oftenBenchmarks with one clear percentile leader.Missing evidenceBenchmarks where a top model has no visible score.Decision readA public claim tied to an explicit use case and source filter.