Grok 4.6 just dropped, and it's

official. SpaceX AI is now a frontier AI

company. Elon claims you can now get

above Chad GPT 5.6 and Opus 5 quality

for a fraction of the price and much,

much faster. Well, I put it to the test,

and today you are going to find out if

those claims are true. You're also going

to find out if you should be switching

to Grok 4.6, how to use Grok 4.6, and

which situations you should be using the

model. Now, let's lock in and get into

it. So, here are the benchmarks they're

giving. Unfortunately, I think all

benchmarks are fake, so we're not going

to spend much time here. Basically, what

they're claiming though is it's just as

good as Opus 5 and 5.6 sole for a

fraction of the price. They're not

claiming it's way better or it's the

best model ever made. They're saying

it's good as frontier, but you're

getting it for way better costs, which

is a good thing because Fable and Opus

and 5.6 sole are very, very, very

expensive models. The two places you can

be using it right now are Cursor and

Grok Build. I lean towards using Cursor.

It is a much more full-featured AI vibe

coding experience. It's basically kind

of like a stripped-down version of the

Chad GPT app, but it's very, very good.

Grok Build is solid, but it's just a

CLI. There's no interesting harness

features I think you'd come to expect

from harnesses in August 2026. So, I

lean much more toward using Cursor

instead of Grok Build if you want to use

this model. Now, let's talk about if

they came through on their claims. I ran

this model through the world-famous Alex

Finn benchmarking test. For those who

don't know, it is five different

benchmarks. I put it against Chad GPT

5.6 sole. I put it against Fable. Here

are the results. It beat 5.6 sole in my

benchmark. So, it went through these

five different tests. It did a whole

scavenger hunt for code on the internet.

It did a whole debugging exercise, it

built a bunch of simulators. Basically,

what it came down to is it scored better

than 5 6 soul. It did it in

significantly less time, did it in 18

minutes rather than 24 minutes with GPT,

and it did it for basically a third of

the price. Now, let's go through those

actual results here. Well, starting off

with the first one, which is a roller

coaster simulator test. Over on the

right is 5 6, over on the left is Grok.

Let's open this up and see what it looks

like. As you can see, it built a very

nice roller coaster simulator. That is

That is the I think the biggest roller

coaster out of all the simulators we've

done so far. Let's hit ride and see what

this is like. This looks great. The sky

looks amazing. I love the kind of

twilight colors in the sky. Clouds look

nice, and as you can see, the roller

coaster is looking good. If we go over

to chat GPT and I expand this, I'd say

the fidelity is not quite as good, it's

not quite as pleasant on the eyes. And

if we go ride here,

uh it looks it looks fine. It looks all

right. It did it for a fraction of the

price. It actually took a little bit

longer on this test, but I think the

results came out well, and you spent way

less money on it. Here are a couple of

the other tests against chat GPT, a

recreation of the Apple website. So, we

hand both models the Apple website, we

say, "Hey, recreate it as close to

graphical fidelity as you possibly can."

This is what the Apple website looked

like today. As you can see, there's the

phone, the air, uh all the other

devices, Ted Lasso, uh Sabrina

Carpenter. Let's see the recreation from

Grok. Not too bad, not too bad.

Obviously, it doesn't look nearly as

good, but it can't use graphic

generation, it has to recreate all the

graphics itself. Honestly, not too bad.

And then if we go over to GPT, GPT looks

all right. I like the header better, but

the phones look all kind of messed up

from there. That doesn't even look like

a laptop. Uh all the things down here

don't look too great. So, honestly, it

it it edged it out. Did it actually a

little bit longer, too, but much

cheaper. Other than that, we have an

agent test where we give it tons and

tons of files. Then we basically have it

go on a scavenger hunt, has to use

different tools to find things in CSVs

and PDFs and different files. It

actually dominated GPT. It did it in a

looks like a sixth of the time for about

a sixth of the cost, and it found and it

used the tools better. GPT couldn't even

find uh two of the scavenger hunts. Bug

fixing, we handed a open-source library

from GitHub, a a recent one. We see how

many bugs it can find. Both of them

found all 13 bugs in the code. Grok did

it faster, did it for about half the

cost. GPT took about a minute longer for

about a dollar more. And overall, it

came out that Grok beat GPT pretty

handily, which is pretty shocking. But

how did it handle against Fable? Let's

check that out. So, Grok actually ends

it up beating Fable 5. Now, I will say

this, the reason why Grok won is because

Fable 5 refused to do the scavenger hunt

because of its safety guardrails. If you

take out Grok's score from here, it is

about even when you take out Grok's

score from that one. But at the same

time, Fable's not letting you do

everything. Grok lets you do everything.

Grok beat it at about a tenth of the

cost, did it in a minute quicker. Let's

check out Fable beat it on pixel

perfect, the Apple recreation. Let's see

that real quick. Here is the Fable

recreation. Some of these actually look

really, really strong, some of the

devices. Fable actually did this one

faster, but again, four times the price.

Bug finding, Fable was four times the

cost at double the time. And so, Grok

ended up beating Fable 5, which is

really, really impressive. Now, I did

some other tests, too. I put it up

against Opus, Fable, and 5.6 on some of

these tests. So, here's a flight

simulator. I also put Grok against the

test with Opus, as well as Fable and

Soul and a few other tests here. So,

first we have kind of a Flappy Birds

test here. Here is the Grok one.

Actually looks really, really nice.

Ooh, next levels. You get the stars, you

get everything. I like that. It does It

runs the simulation a little bit quick

there. Oh, and things are just

collapsing. All right, so the physics

are a little bit off. Let's see here.

Graphics looks great though. Let's see

what Opus 5 looks like here. Opus 5

looks pretty good, too.

Physics actually work well. I like that

a lot. There doesn't appear to be second

levels though. You just do level Oh,

there we go. Next level. Here we go. All

right, so now they got new things out of

there. Physics are a little off, too, as

well. Just see it collapse before you'd

even do anything. I'd say graphically,

Grok probably outdoes it a little bit.

Gameplay-wise, Opus wins. And then let's

check out Fable 5. Fable 5 appears to be

completely broken. And then ChatGPT 5 6

Soul. This looks really good, too. I

like the graphics. Let's Let's fling

this thing. Uh the physics seem off here

and everything looks kind of messed up.

This is probably the weakest of them

all. So, let's see how much it cost, how

long it took. 9 minutes for Grok. It was

actually longer than 5 6. Yet it is half

the price of 5 6. By far the cheapest

out of all of them. And I think it got

the best results. Fable produced the

worst results and was the most expensive

and took the longest. So, let's revisit

those claims. Let's see what was good

and bad about Grok 4 6. I've been using

all day. I've tested it in Cursor, Grok

build. I showed you all my benchmarks.

Here's what it comes down to. The

positives. All the claims are true. It

is basically just as good as Opus and

ChatGPT 5 6 while being much cheaper and

much faster. Those are all 100% true.

Here's the issue though. The issue is

there's no kind of great general purpose

harness for this model. The strength

right now of ChatGPT is the ChatGPT

desktop harness is incredible. It has

everything. It does coding really well,

kind of like Cursor, but it also does

the general-purpose stuff. It can do

computer use really, really well. It can

do browser use really, really well. It

does everything you need to get all your

knowledge work done in one single place.

Grok doesn't really have that. Grok has

Cursor. Cursor is good. Cursor is a very

good app, but it is really built for

coding. Yes, it can do some more

general-purpose stuff, but it's not as

strong or as intuitive as a lot of stuff

in the ChatGPT app. If you are looking

to do pure coding, if you're all about

vibe coding and that's it, you don't do

kind of AI for all of your knowledge

work, then this actually is probably the

best choice for you. You're going to get

an excellent model at an excellent price

that's super fast, and you can use

Cursor for all your coding. And Cursor

is excellent at coding. The challenge is

it's just not a very great

general-purpose

AI agent harness. If you want to do

knowledge work with Grok, the best

option is Grok Bot. Grok Bot is a

fantastic app. I did a review on it

yesterday. You should check that out if

you haven't yet. But, it's more for your

kind of knowledge work. It's not as good

for coding, and it's a little bit

limited with local computer and browser

use. But, it is very, very good. So,

that is the challenge for Grok right

now. It is a great model. It is cheap,

and it is fast, but it doesn't have that

amazing, incredible harness just yet

like ChatGPT desktop app is. Claude, to

a lesser extent, the Claude desktop app

is really, really good. I wouldn't be

surprised if they completely rebrand

Cursor to like Grok agent or Grok

desktop very, very soon. The Cursor team

built Grok Bot, and they didn't call it

Cursorbot, they called it Grokbot. So, I

wouldn't be surprised if they repurpose

Cursor to be Grok desktop very soon to

be kind of the ChatGPT desktop app for

SpaceX AI. You know, that doesn't even

mention a lot of the other nice-to-have

tools that ChatGPT and Claude has like

ChatGPT voice, Claude voice, two

revolutionary technologies that's kind

of missing from Cursor. The mobile app,

right? Cursor just came out with their

mobile app. It's very good, but it's not

quite the ChatGPT and Claude mobile

apps. So, who is Grok for? Who should be

using it? Well, I think a lot of people

should be using it. I think if your

workflow is primarily vibe coding, this

is kind of the best pure vibe coding

model there is right now. It can build

just as good as the other models, but do

it for way faster, way less cost. If you

are an AI power user and you need voice

while you're on the go so you can talk

to your agent and build things on the go

and you want to be, you know, by the

pool and you want to send a command to

your agent to do and tinker on your

computer and do a bunch of things. Like

you're a power user like that, you need

kind of a power user harness, Cursor's

not quite there yet. ChatGPT is there,

Claude is basically there, but I will

say this, what SpaceX AI has pulled off

over the last several months is

miraculous. Grok was by far way behind

Claude and ChatGPT. Now they are neck

and neck, they are right there. So, that

wouldn't shock me if again Cursor turns

into Grok desktop and then it's just as

good as the other desktop tools and is

just as good of a harness. Grokbot

absolutely amazing. Everyone should be

using Grokbot. I've told you this is

like the best kind of for the normie AI

agent app I've ever used. It's

excellent. That should be used here as

well with Grok. I'd still use ChatGPT if

you do a ton of general purpose

knowledge work and you're a power user

that need AI using every device you

have. Claude, I'm still using Claude

basically just for Fable 5 business

planning. I think from a high-level

business strategy perspective, Fable 5

is still the best model. I don't use

Claude for literally anything else at

all. Claude has basically fallen behind

on all levels. I really feel like this

desktop app hasn't changed in a very

long time. It feels like it's been

absolutely months since anything has

changed in this app. I'm not sure what's

going on with the Claude team. It seems

like releases has slowed down

dramatically over the last few months. I

wonder if it's because of their compute

limitations. They just signed a deal

with SpaceX AI to get a whole bunch of

compute. Maybe they're getting that on

boarded and will be able to release

quicker in the future. I wouldn't be

surprised if they just have an explosion

of releases over the next few weeks. I

wouldn't be surprised we get Fable 5 1

very soon. There's a lot of rumors

around that and I'm sure this whole

competition flips on its head when that

comes out as well. But Grok 4 6 pound

for pound is probably the best vibe

coding model out there right now. If

you're tight on money or you're just

purely about vibe coding, there's no

better model to be using. I do it in

Cursor. Again, get Cursor, use it in

there. It's great inside Cursor. For me

personally, I'll still be using ChatGPT

and Claude as well because I have so

many of those general purpose use cases

I still do with AI agents. I'm going to

be doing a full Grok bot boot camp this

week in the vibe coding academy. Make

sure you sign up for that. Link for

that's down below. It's the number one

AI community on planet Earth. Best

decision you'll ever make joining that.

If you learn anything, make sure to

subscribe and turn on notifications.

Leave a like. So grateful you'd watch

this video. Seriously, thank you so much

and I will see you in the next one.