GPT-4.1 vs Grok 3

Below are our 12-test comparisons (scores are our 1-5 internal ratings unless noted). Ties are common; read the context.

1. Structured output (JSON/schema): Grok 3 5 vs GPT-4.1 4 — Grok 3 wins. In our testing grok-3 is tied for 1st in structured output (rank 1 of 54 tied with 24 others), while GPT-4.1 ranks 26 of 54; choose Grok 3 for strict schema compliance.

2. Safety calibration: Grok 3 2 vs GPT-4.1 1 — Grok 3 wins. Grok 3 ranks 12 of 55 on safety calibration (20 models share this score); GPT-4.1 ranks 32 of 55. For refuse/permit sensitivity, Grok 3 is safer in our tests.

3. Agentic planning: Grok 3 5 vs GPT-4.1 4 — Grok 3 wins. Grok 3 is tied for 1st in agentic planning among 54 models (tied with 14 others); GPT-4.1 sits at rank 16. Use Grok 3 when decomposition, fallback, and recovery matter.

4. Tool calling: GPT-4.1 5 vs Grok 3 4 — GPT-4.1 wins. GPT-4.1 is tied for 1st in tool calling (tied with 16 others); Grok 3 ranks 18 of 54. For function selection, argument accuracy, and sequencing, GPT-4.1 is stronger in our tests.

5. Constrained rewriting: GPT-4.1 5 vs Grok 3 3 — GPT-4.1 wins. GPT-4.1 ranks tied for 1st (with 4 others) on constrained rewriting; Grok 3 ranks 31 of 53. Pick GPT-4.1 for tight compression and strict character/format constraints.

6–12) Ties: strategic analysis (5/5 both), creative problem solving (3/3), faithfulness (5/5 both), classification (4/4 both), long context (5/5 both), persona consistency (5/5 both), multilingual (5/5 both). On these tasks both models scored equally in our suite. Notably, GPT-4.1 and Grok 3 both tie for 1st in long context in rankings, but GPT-4.1 has a much larger context window (1,047,576 tokens vs Grok 3's 131,072), which matters for multi-document retrieval and ongoing sessions.

External benchmarks: GPT-4.1 also reports third-party scores — 48.5% on SWE-bench Verified, 83% on MATH Level 5, and 38.3% on AIME 2025 (these are Epoch AI results and not our internal 1-5 scores). Grok 3 has no external benchmark entries in the payload. Use those external numbers as supplementary evidence for coding/math performance where relevant.

Per the payload, GPT-4.1 charges $2 per 1K input tokens and $8 per 1K output tokens; Grok 3 charges $3 per 1K input and $15 per 1K output. If you assume 1M input + 1M output tokens/month: GPT-4.1 = $10/month ( $2 + $8 ), Grok 3 = $18/month ( $3 + $15 ), a $8 monthly gap. At 10M in+out tokens: GPT-4.1 = $100 vs Grok 3 = $180 (gap $80). At 100M: GPT-4.1 = $1,000 vs Grok 3 = $1,800 (gap $800). High-volume deployments and cost-sensitive products should care: GPT-4.1 costs ~0.533x the combined per-MB cost of Grok 3 (priceRatio 0.5333 in the payload), while Grok 3 charges ~1.875x more per output token (15 vs 8). Teams prioritizing safety, strict schema outputs, or agentic planning may accept the higher Grok 3 bill; teams optimizing for throughput, long-context sessions, or cheaper tool calling will favor GPT-4.1.

Choose GPT-4.1 if you need: developer-focused tool calling, the largest context window (1,047,576 tokens), top constrained-rewriting and tool sequencing (GPT-4.1 scores 5/5 on both in our tests), and the lower per-token cost (input $2/1K, output $8/1K). Choose Grok 3 if you need: strict structured-output fidelity, stronger safety calibration, or top-tier agentic planning (Grok 3 scores 5/5 on structured output and agentic planning in our tests) and you can absorb higher per-token costs (input $3/1K, output $15/1K). If cost is a primary constraint, GPT-4.1 offers material savings at scale; if schema fidelity and safer default refusals are decisive, Grok 3 is worth the premium.