| Signal | Grok 3 | Delta | R1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | +17 | |
Benchmarks | 73 | +0 | |
Pricing | 85 | -12 | |
Context window size | 81 | +5 | |
Recency | 72 | +26 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -50 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
73.5
current score
Grok 3
right now
73
current score
xAI
DeepSeek
R1 saves you $855.00/month
That's $10260.00/year compared to Grok 3 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Grok 3 | R1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 74 | 73 | Grok 3 |
| Rank | #72 | #76 | Grok 3 |
| Quality Rank | #72 | #76 | Grok 3 |
| Adoption Rank | #72 | #76 | Grok 3 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 131K | 64K | Grok 3 |
| Pricing | $3.00/$15.00/M | $0.70/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 50 | Grok 3 |
| Benchmarks | 73 | 73 | Grok 3 |
| Pricing | 85 | 98 | R1 |
| Context window size | 81 | 76 | Grok 3 |
| Recency | 72 | 46 | Grok 3 |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 70 | R1 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 74/100 (rank #72), placing it in the top 76% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 73/100 (rank #76), placing it in the top 74% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
R1 offers 82% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $48.00/month with R1 vs $270.00/month with Grok 3 - a $222.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. R1 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (74/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Grok 3 and R1 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.5 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Grok 3
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
R1
82% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Grok 3
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Grok 3
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Grok 3
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by xAI
| Capability | Grok 3 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
xAI
DeepSeek
R1 saves you $19.14/month
That's 82% cheaper than Grok 3 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Grok 3 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 131K | 64K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 16,000 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Jun 10, 2025 | Jan 20, 2025 |