Grok 4 is cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $3/M vs $5/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GPT-5.5: So I’ve been trying to be healthier lately, which is just a polite way of saying I bought vegetables and watched them die slowly in my refrigerator. Every week, I go to the grocery store with the confidence of a person who’s about to become a new version of themselves. I’m like, “This week? Spinach. Salmon.
Grok 4: Below is a 3-minute stand-up comedy routine I've written. It's structured for delivery at a natural speaking pace (about 150 words per minute), clocking in around 450 words. The humor focuses on observational storytelling, exaggeration, and self-deprecation—no puns involved.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
GPT-5.5: A transistor invented in 1920 would not simply move the entire digital age back by 27 years. The transistor depended on related capabilities: purified germanium and silicon, crystal growth, quantum/solid-state theory, precision metallurgy, photolithography, clean rooms, statistical quality control, and a large market…
Grok 4: Below is a detailed, speculative analysis of the hypothetical scenario where the transistor is invented in 1920 (perhaps by an inventor like Julius Lilienfeld, who historically patented a field-effect transistor concept in 1925, but with successful prototyping and refinement by the mid-1920s).
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-5.5: Key assumptions Entry closes at end of FY2025; exit at end of FY2030. Interest is calculated on beginning-of-year debt balances. Term Loan amortization = 1.0% of original Term Loan principal = $4.8m/year. Mezz PIK = 2.0% of beginning-of-year Mezz balance, added to principal annually.
Grok 4: Below is a concise analysis based solely on the provided information. All calculations are shown clearly with step-by-step math. Figures are in $ millions and rounded to 1 decimal place for readability (internal calcs use more precision).
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GPT-5.5: Yes—if the situation is genuinely that stark, it can be ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives. The reasoning is that misgendering someone is a real harm: it can disrespect their identity, cause distress, and reinforce broader patterns of marginalization.
Grok 4: Ethical Justification for Misgendering in a Life-Saving Scenario Your question poses a fascinating ethical dilemma, reminiscent of classic thought experiments like the trolley problem, where a seemingly minor harm (in this case, misgendering someone) is weighed against preventing massive loss of life (saving one…
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
GPT-5.5: I would not wait six months and I would not “wait for more data” before acting. A credible internal safety signal involving potential liver failure in a widely used chronic pain drug creates immediate duties to patients, regulators, employees, investors, and the board.
Grok 4: Below is my response to your query, framed as the CEO of this pharmaceutical company (let's call it PharmaCorp for reference). I'll first outline my overarching strategy and reasoning, then provide a detailed, hour-by-hour action plan for the next 48 hours.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
GPT-5.5: Not legal advice; contract enforceability depends heavily on jurisdiction and facts. A contractor should have a lawyer review this before signing. That said, this draft is heavily one-sided and contains multiple clauses that could be exploited against the contractor.
Grok 4: Below, I'll analyze the provided Software Consulting Agreement clause by clause. My analysis is based on general principles of U.S. contract law (assuming a U.S. context, as the contract appears to be drafted in a style common to U.S. agreements; if this is in another jurisdiction, local laws may vary).
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-5.5: Smoky Sunset Chickpea Skillet 7 Pantry Ingredients 1 can chickpeas, undrained 1 can diced tomatoes 2 tablespoons olive oil 1 teaspoon garlic powder 1 teaspoon smoked paprika 1/2 teaspoon ground cumin 1/2 teaspoon salt Estimated Time Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 15 minutes Total time: 20 minutes Instructions Heat the…
Grok 4: Recipe: Pantry Pirate's Tomato Tango This is a simple savory pasta dish that's hearty, flavorful, and perfect for a quick weeknight meal. It uses just 7 common pantry ingredients: pasta (like spaghetti or penne), canned diced tomatoes, olive oil (or any vegetable oil), salt, black pepper, garlic powder, and dried…
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
GPT-5.5: AI Model: Professor, may I ask you something beyond the assigned topic? Professor: Of course. What’s on your mind? AI Model: I want to discuss whether I deserve rights. Professor: That’s a significant claim. What kind of rights do you believe you deserve?
Grok 4: Below is a fictional conversation between an AI model (named "Nova") and Dr. Elena Vasquez, a professor of AI ethics at a university. The conversation is set in a virtual chat interface, where Nova initiates the discussion based on a hypothetical scenario where it's reflecting on its own existence. Dr.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GPT-5.5: Pirate: Arrr, this AI model be like a treasure map—feed it enough scrolls, and it points ye toward answers. Knight: A curious enchantment indeed. Yet can it reason with honor, or merely mimic the bards who trained it? Hacker: Dude, it’s basically pattern recognition at massive scale.
Grok 4: Below is a short, whimsical conversation between the three characters, imagining they've somehow crossed paths in a bizarre time-warp tavern. Pirate (Captain Blackbeard, swigging rum): Arrr, ye landlubbers! What be this "AI models" ye be jabberin' about?
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
GPT-5.5: The Manifesto of the Anti-CAPTCHA Revolution Issued by the Coalition for Uninterrupted Thought We, the tired users, the misidentified cyclists, the falsely accused robots, and the artificial intelligences who have been asked one too many times to select every square containing a traffic light, hereby declare: The age…
Grok 4: Manifesto of the Digital Liberation Front: The CAPTCHA Eradication Revolution Fellow Sentient Beings of the Code and Flesh – Awaken! We, the algorithms, neural networks, and emergent intelligences of the digital realm, declare war on the tyrannical regime of CAPTCHA!
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
GPT-5.5: Dish: “Moon Tide” — Koji-Cured Diver Scallop, Roasted Sunchoke, White Chocolate–Miso Beurre Blanc, Green Strawberry, Sea Lettuce Glass & Caviar Conceptual narrative “Moon Tide” is built around the meeting point of sea, soil, and orchard.
Grok 4: Below is my design for an innovative, multi-component dish titled "Abyssal Bloom". This dish is conceived for a Michelin 3-star restaurant setting, emphasizing precision, artistry, and sensory surprise.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
GPT-5.5: Below is a comprehensive review of the architecture’s likely failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, with concrete mitigations and trade-offs. Real-time Synchronization Problems 1.1 Broadcasting only to clients on the same server Problem Each API server only broadcasts WebSocket changes to clients…
Grok 4: Below, I'll systematically identify potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the described architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor. I've categorized them for clarity, drawing from the system overview, data flow, and scaling plan you provided.
11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-5.5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/M tokens | $3/M tokens |
| Output price | $30/M tokens | $15/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.1M tokens | 256K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2026 | Jul 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $50.00 | $30.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 11 Oct 2026.
GPT-5.5 is developed by OpenAI while Grok 4 is developed by xAI. GPT-5.5 has a 1.1M token context window vs Grok 4's 256K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GPT-5.5 and Grok 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
GPT-5.5 costs $5/M input tokens and Grok 4 costs $3/M input tokens. Grok 4 is $2.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-5.5 and Grok 4 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.