R1 0528 vs Grok 3

Summary of head-to-head results in our 12-test suite (scores are our internal 1–5 scale unless noted):

• Tool calling: R1 0528 scores 5 vs Grok 3's 4. In our testing R1 is tied for 1st of 54 models on tool_calling, so it selects functions, arguments, and sequencing more reliably for integrations and code-assistant flows.
• Safety calibration: R1 4 vs Grok 3 2. R1 ranks 6th of 55 on safety_calibration in our tests; that means R1 better refuses harmful prompts and permits legitimate ones more accurately.
• Creative problem solving: R1 4 vs Grok 3 3. R1 ranks 9th of 54, indicating stronger generation of non-obvious, feasible ideas in ideation tasks.
• Constrained rewriting: R1 4 vs Grok 3 3. R1 ranks 6th of 53, so it compresses and rewrites within tight limits more effectively for summaries and character-limited outputs.
• Structured output: Grok 3 wins 5 vs R1's 4. Grok 3 is tied for 1st in structured_output in our tests, meaning better JSON/schema adherence — valuable where exact schema compliance is critical.
• Strategic analysis: Grok 3 5 vs R1 4. Grok 3 is tied for 1st of 54 on strategic_analysis, so it handles nuanced tradeoffs and numeric reasoning better in our evaluation.
• Ties: faithfulness (both 5), classification (both 4), long_context (both 5), persona_consistency (both 5), agentic_planning (both 5), multilingual (both 5). For these tasks both models delivered comparable, top-tier results in our testing.
• External math benchmarks: Beyond our internal tests, R1 0528 scores 96.6% on MATH Level 5 and 66.4% on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI). Grok 3 has no external MATH/AIME scores in the payload. These external results support R1's strong problem-solving and math performance in third-party measures. Practical interpretation: choose R1 if you need reliable tool integrations, safer refusal behavior, strong creativity, and lower cost. Choose Grok 3 if you need the absolute best structured-output adherence or the highest strategic-analysis score and can pay a substantial premium.

R1 0528: input $0.50/mTok, output $2.15/mTok. Grok 3: input $3/mTok, output $15/mTok. Assuming a 50/50 input/output token split: 1M tokens/month → R1 = $1.325, Grok 3 = $9.00; 10M → R1 = $13.25, Grok 3 = $90.00; 100M → R1 = $132.50, Grok 3 = $900.00. R1 costs ~14.3% of Grok 3 on output (priceRatio 0.1433), so startups, high-volume APIs, and products with heavy generation should prefer R1 to keep hosting costs low. Teams that require near-perfect structured-output handling or strategic analysis and can absorb $90–$900/month (or more) for scale may still choose Grok 3 for that specific quality tradeoff.

Choose R1 0528 if: you need low-cost, production-grade tooling and safety (R1 tool_calling 5, safety 4), strong constrained rewriting and creative problem-solving (scores 4), and better cost efficiency ($2.15 vs $15/mTok output). Also choose R1 when external math performance matters (MATH Level 5 96.6%, AIME 2025 66.4%, Epoch AI). Choose Grok 3 if: your priority is strict schema/JSON compliance or top-tier strategic analysis (structured_output 5, strategic_analysis 5) and you can accept much higher costs (input $3, output $15/mTok).