Cursorbench: Grok 4.5 better than GPT-5.5, at ~half the cost

Grok 4.5 outperforms GPT-5.5 on CursorBench at roughly half the cost, though an earlier snapshot of the Cursor codebase was accidentally included in Grok 4.5's training, potentially inflating its score. The data has been removed for future models.

Grok 4.5 has an advantage on CursorBench: an earlier snapshot of the Cursor codebase was accidentally included in training. The exact score impact is unclear. That data has been removed for future models, and was not present for Composer models in the past. Changelog CursorBench 3.2 Introduced instruction following and advanced tool use problems. CursorBench 3.1 Introduced problems focused on codebase understanding, bugfinding, planning, and code review. Improved grading criteria for some edit tasks. CursorBench 3.0 Initial set of tasks focused on edit, refactor, and bugfix problems. Avg cost / task is computed by applying each model's published per-million-token pricing input, cache read, cache write, and output to the tokens it used on each task across the CursorBench 3.2 benchmarks, then averaging with the same task weights as the CursorBench 3.2 score. Results are subject to variance; small differences in scores may not be statistically meaningful. Grok 4.5 has an advantage on CursorBench: an earlier snapshot of the Cursor codebase was accidentally included in training. The exact score impact is unclear. That data has been removed for future models, and was not present for Composer models in the past. Changelog CursorBench 3.2 Introduced instruction following and advanced tool use problems. CursorBench 3.1 Introduced problems focused on codebase understanding, bugfinding, planning, and code review. Improved grading criteria for some edit tasks. CursorBench 3.0 Initial set of tasks focused on edit, refactor, and bugfix problems. Avg cost / task is computed by applying each model's published per-million-token pricing input, cache read, cache write, and output to the tokens it used on each task across the CursorBench 3.2 benchmarks, then averaging with the same task weights as the CursorBench 3.2 score. Results are subject to variance; small differences in scores may not be statistically meaningful.