// head_to_head

Qwen3.6 Plus vs SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload.

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 is ahead by 9.1 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 4.1× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 9.1 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you.

qwen

Qwen3.6 Plus

Blended / 1M
$0.731
Context
1M
Released
Apr 2, 2026
Overall score
68.9
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo input

x-ai

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6

Blended / 1M
$3.00
Context
500K
Released
Aug 12, 2026
Overall score
78.0
reasoningtool callingimage inputfile inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricQwen3.6 PlusSpaceXAI: Grok 4.6
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

68.978.0win
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.1262$0.1181
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$0.731win$3.00
Input price / 1M$0.325win$2.00
Output price / 1M$1.95win$6.00
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.500
Context window1Mwin500K
Max output tokens66K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Qwen3.6 Plus on top, SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
41.4
57.0
Coding
78.2
76.8
Reasoning
75.8
90.5
Mathematics
83.7
92.6
Data analysis
69.9
73.9
Language
75.0
83.7
Instruction following
58.3
71.9

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadQwen3.6 PlusSpaceXAI: Grok 4.6
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$234.00/mo$852.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$377.00/mo$1360.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$416.00/mo$1240.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$471.25/mo$2375.00/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1007.50/mo$4850.00/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

Quality matters more than the bill

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6

Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 78.0.

The workload is coding or agentic work

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6

Leads on agentic coding — 57.0 against 41.4.

You need to fit large documents in one call

Qwen3.6 Plus

Wider context window — 1M against 500K.

Qwen3.6 Plus vs SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 FAQ

Which is better, Qwen3.6 Plus or SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6?

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 scores higher, Qwen3.6 Plus costs less — it depends on your workload. SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 is ahead by 9.1 points overall, and Qwen3.6 Plus lists 4.1× cheaper per blended million tokens. Whether 9.1 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you.

Is Qwen3.6 Plus cheaper than SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.731 per million tokens and SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 at $3.00 — Qwen3.6 Plus is 4.1× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Qwen3.6 Plus charges $0.325 in and $1.95 out, SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 charges $2.00 and $6.00 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Qwen3.6 Plus vs SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6: which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores 68.9 and SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 scores 78.0 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 9.1-point lead for SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.

Which gives better value for money, Qwen3.6 Plus or SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6?

They are close. Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.1262 per point of overall capability and SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 costs $0.1181, a difference small enough that workload shape will matter more than the rate.

Does Qwen3.6 Plus or SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 have a bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger context window: 1M for Qwen3.6 Plus against 500K for SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.

Do Qwen3.6 Plus and SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 support prompt caching?

SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.500 per million tokens against a full input rate of $2.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3.6 Plus, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.