Grok vs Perplexity for Coding
Grok is the stronger choice for coding tasks, offering superior math and reasoning capabilities with cheaper pricing ($8/month vs. $20/month), though it lacks code execution features. Perplexity's strength lies in research and fact-checking rather than practical coding work, making it better suited for learning concepts than writing code. Neither offers built-in code execution, so both require external testing environments, but Grok's reasoning prowess gives it an edge for debugging and algorithmic problem-solving.
Head-to-Head for Coding
| Criteria | Grok | Perplexity | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithm Development | Strong math/reasoning capabilities | Search-focused, less optimized | Grok |
| Bug Diagnosis & Solutions | Deep reasoning for debugging | Web search with citations | Grok |
| API & Documentation Research | Real-time web search | Real-time search with citations | Perplexity |
| Learning New Frameworks | Reasoning-based explanations | Cited references for credibility | Tie |
Algorithm Development
Grok
Strong math/reasoning capabilities
Perplexity
Search-focused, less optimized
Bug Diagnosis & Solutions
Grok
Deep reasoning for debugging
Perplexity
Web search with citations
API & Documentation Research
Grok
Real-time web search
Perplexity
Real-time search with citations
Learning New Frameworks
Grok
Reasoning-based explanations
Perplexity
Cited references for credibility
See Them Answer a Coding Question
We asked both models the same coding-focused prompt.
βBuild a Python script that scrapes a website's sitemap, extracts all URLs, and checks each one for broken links, outputting results as a formatted CSV report.β
Build a Python script that scrapes a website's sitemap, extracts all URLs, and checks each one for broken links, outputting results as a formatted CSV report.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""
Broken Link Checker Script
==========================
This script:
1. Discovers sitemaps from robots.txt or common locations.
2. Parses sitemap(s) recursively to extract page URLs (limited to same domain).
3. For each page (up to --max-pages), fetches the page and extracts all <a href> links.
4. Checks each link (HEAD request, internal only by default) for broken status (>=400 or error).
5. Outputs ONLY broken links (including broken pages themselves) to a CSV report.
Usage:
python broken_link_checker.py https://example.com --max-pages 50 --output report.csv
Dependencies:
pip install requests beautifulsoup4 lxml
Notes:
- Sequential checking to respect servers (use --delay for slower sites).
- Filters out mailto:, tel:, javascript:, #, non-http(s) links.
- HEAD requests for speed; falls back to reporting errors.
- Limited to --max-pages to avoid overload.
- Add --check-external to include external links (slower).
"""
import argparse
import csv
import time
import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
from datetime import datetime
from urllib.parse import urljoin, urlparse
import requests
from bs4 import BeautifulSoup
def get_sitemaps(base_url):
"""Fetch sitemaps from robots.txt or fallback locations."""
sitemaps = []
try:
robots_url = urljoin(base_url, '/robots.txt')
r = requests.get(robots_url, timeout=10)
r.raise_for_status()
for line in r.text.splitlines():
if line.lower().startswith('sitemap:'):
sitemap_url = line.split(':', 1)[1].strip()
sitemaps.append(sitemap_url)
except Exception:
pass
if not sitemaps:
# Common fallback locations
sitemaps = [
urljoin(base_url, '/sitemap.xml'),
urljoin(base_url, '/sitemap_index.xml'),
urljoin(base_url, '/sitemap-index.xml')
]
return sitemaps
def parse_sitemap(url):
"""Recursively parse sitemap XML and return list of page URLs."""
try:
r = requests.get(url, timeout=10)
r.raise_for_status()
root = ET.fromstring(r.content)
ns = {'s': 'http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9'}
urls = []
# Find all <loc> elements (works for both urlset and sitemapindex)
for loc_elem in root.findall('.//s:loc', ns):
loc_url = loc_elem.text.strip()
if loc_url:
# Recurse if it's a sitemapindex entry (contains <sitemap>)
sub_root = None
try:
sub_r = requests.get(loc_url, timeout=10)
sub_root = ET.fromstring(sub_r.content)
except Exception:
pass
if sub_root and sub_root.find('.//s:sitemap', ns) is not None:
urls.extend(parse_sitemap(loc_url))
else:
urls.append(loc_url)
return urls
except Exception as e:
print(f"Error parsing sitemap {url}: {e}")
return []
def check_link(link):
"""Check a single link with HEAD request."""
try:
start_time = time.time()
resp = requests.head(link, timeout=10, allow_redirects=True,
headers={'User-Agent': 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; LinkChecker/1.0)'})
elapsed_ms = (time.time() - start_time) * 1000
return resp.status_code, elapsed_ms, None
except Exception as e:
return 'ERROR', 0, str(e)
def check_page(page_url, base_domain, check_external=False):
"""Check a single page for broken links. Returns list of broken [source, link, status, time, timestamp, error]."""
broken = []
headers = {'User-Agent': 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; LinkChecker/1.0)'}
try:
page_resp = requests.get(page_url, timeout=10, headers=headers)
timestamp = datetime.now().isoformat()
if page_resp.status_code >= 400:
broken.append([page_url, page_url, page_resp.status_code,
page_resp.elapsed.total_seconds() * 1000, timestamp, None])
return broken
soup = BeautifulSoup(page_resp.content, 'html.parser')
links = set()
for a in soup.find_all('a', href=True):
href = a['href'].strip()
if not href or href.startswith(('#', 'mailto:', 'tel:', 'javascript:')):
continue
full_url = urljoin(page_url, href)
parsed = urlparse(full_url)
if parsed.scheme not in ('http', 'https'):
continue
if not check_external and parsed.netloc != base_domain:
continue
links.add(full_url)
for link in links:
status, elapsed_ms, error = check_link(link)
row_timestamp = datetime.now().isoformat()
if status == 'ERROR' or (isinstance(status, int) and status >= 400):
broken.append([page_url, link, status, elapsed_ms, row_timestamp, error])
return broken
except Exception as e:
timestamp = datetime.now().isoformat()
broken.append([page_url, page_url, 'ERROR_PAGE', 0, timestamp, str(e)])
return broken
def main():
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description='Check website sitemap for broken links.')
parser.add_argument('url', help='Base website URL (e.g., https://example.com)')
parser.add_argument('--output', '-o', default='broken_links_report.csv',
help='Output CSV file (default: broken_links_report.csv)')
parser.add_argument('--max-pages', '-m', type=int, default=100,
help='Max pages to check (default: 100)')
parser.add_argument('--delay', type=float, default=0.5,
help='Delay between requests in seconds (default: 0.5)')
parser.add_argument('--check-external', '-e', action='store_true',
help='Check external links too (default: internal only)')
args = parser.parse_args()
base_url = args.url.rstrip('/')
base_parsed = urlparse(base_url)
base_domain = base_parsed.netloc
print(f"Discovering sitemaps for {base_url}...")
sitemaps = get_sitemaps(base_url)
all_page_urls = []
for sitemap in sitemaps:
print(f"Parsing sitemap: {sitemap}")
all_page_urls.extend(parse_sitemap(sitemap))
# Filter to same domain and unique
page_urls = list(set(
u for u in all_page_urls
if u and urlparse(u).netloc == base_domain
))[:args.max_pages]
print(f"Found {len(page_urls)} unique internal pages to check (limited to {args.max_pages}).")
results = []
total_pages = len(page_urls)
for i, page_url in enumerate(page_urls, 1):
print(f"[{i}/{total_pages}] Checking: {page_url}")
broken = check_page(page_url, base_domain, args.check_external)
results.extend(broken)
time.sleep(args.delay)
# Write CSV report
with open(args.output, 'w', newline='', encoding='utf-8') as f:
if results:
writer = csv.writer(f)
writer.writerow(['Source_Page', 'Link_URL', 'Status_Code', 'Response_Time_ms', 'Timestamp', 'Error'])
writer.writerows(results)
print(f"\nReport saved: {args.output} ({len(results)} broken links found)")
else:
print(f"\nNo broken links found. Empty report: {args.output}")
print("Done!")
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Features & Usage Notes
- Robust sitemap discovery: Checks
robots.txtfirst, falls back to/sitemap.xmletc. - Recursive sitemap parsing: Handles sitemap indexes automatically.
- Efficient link checking: Unique links per page, HEAD requests (fast), filters junk protocols.
- Internal by default:
--check-externalto include outbound links. - Rate limiting:
--delayprevents bans. - Limits:
--max-pagesavoids overload (e.g., huge sites). - CSV Output: Only broken items (pages/links with 4xx/5xx/ERROR), with timings/timestamps.
- Error resilient: Continues on failures, logs errors.
- Example:
python broken_link_checker.py https://example.com --max-pages 20 --delay 1.0 --output my_report.csv - Customization: Edit
check_link()for GET fallback if HEAD fails often. - Performance: Sequential for politeness; for speed, replace loop with
concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5)(but monitor server response).
Try coding tasks with both models
See Grok and Perplexity answer side by side in Multichat
Detailed Breakdown
When it comes to coding tasks, Grok holds a clear advantage over Perplexity. While neither tool was purpose-built as a coding assistant, Grok's underlying reasoning capabilities make it a far more practical choice for developers than Perplexity's search-first architecture.
Grok's strength in coding stems from its strong general reasoning model. With benchmark scores of 85.4% on MMLU Pro and 85.3% on GPQA Diamond, the model demonstrates the kind of logical and technical reasoning that translates well to writing, debugging, and explaining code. In practice, Grok handles tasks like generating boilerplate, refactoring functions, explaining error messages, and walking through algorithmic logic with solid competence. Its 128K context window also means you can paste in larger files or multi-file snippets without hitting limits too quickly. The extended thinking feature is particularly useful for tackling complex problems β asking Grok to reason through a tricky recursive function or a database query optimization benefits from that extra step-by-step processing.
Perplexity, by contrast, is fundamentally a research and search tool. Its core value proposition is sourced answers from the web, and while that's genuinely useful for looking up documentation, finding Stack Overflow threads, or checking library version compatibility, it doesn't make Perplexity good at actually writing or reasoning through code. Asking Perplexity to debug a function or architect a small feature often produces answers that feel like summarized search results rather than thoughtful engineering responses. The absence of code execution is a limitation both tools share, but it hurts Perplexity more because its alternative β real-time web retrieval β adds less value in pure coding scenarios than Grok's reasoning depth does.
Where Perplexity does earn its place in a developer's workflow is as a research companion. When you need to quickly compare two frameworks, find the latest changelog for a dependency, or verify whether a specific API endpoint still works the same way, Perplexity's cited, real-time search results are genuinely faster and more trustworthy than manually browsing docs. Think of it as a smarter search bar, not a coding assistant.
For pricing, Grok is also the more accessible option β available through an X Premium subscription starting at $8/month, compared to Perplexity Pro at $20/month.
Recommendation: Choose Grok for hands-on coding work β writing functions, debugging, code review, and technical problem-solving. Use Perplexity as a supplementary research tool when you need sourced, up-to-date documentation lookups. For most developers, Grok will be the primary tool in this pairing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Other Topics for Grok vs Perplexity
Coding Comparisons for Other Models
Try coding tasks with Grok and Perplexity
Compare in Multichat β freeJoin 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat