Skip to main content

Model family by xAI

Grok

xAI's frontier Grok model family.

Where it sits in xAI's lineup

  1. GrokxAI's frontier Grok model family.This model
Made by
xAI
Releases
3 tracked
Current release
Grok 4.7

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Grok 4.7

  • Grok 4.7

Suggested comparisons

Grok 4.7 is the newest Grok release. Add its earlier releases to see how the line moved.

Grok 4.7xAIThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Grok 4.7 ranks 11th of 38 on Tool use and 13th of 37 on Code. It ranks lowest on Math, 28th of 28 and Long context, 34th of 38. Computer use and Instruction following: not yet published by xAI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026. Multimodal: published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the table.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero.

On the chart

  • Grok 4.7This pageResults on 9 of 12 axes$2 / $6For prompts under 200K tokens; $4 / $12 at 200K or more, as OpenRouter lists it.89 tokens/sFirst token in 54 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Grok 4.7 on each axis9 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Grok 4.7, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$3.24per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at extra-high effort.

Speed

96tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at extra-high effort.

First token
76 s
Whole answer
81 s

Capacity

500Ktokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
450K
Reads
Text, Images

Quality

46.4of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at extra-high effort.

GDPval knowledge work
1,722 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
25.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index
154

Hallucination

20.0%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at extra-high effort.

Knowledge accuracy
42.7%

Where you can get it

11of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
No
Licence
Terms of Service - Enterprise
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, xAI, OpenRouter, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Grok 4.7: Cached input.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Grok 4.7's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingGrok 4.7RunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness28.8%Grok 4.7Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run57.4%Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run53%Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 22, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run92.7%Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 22, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools43.1%Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run65.6%Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Effort: xhigh. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 releaseNot yet published by xAI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run76.7%Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no toolsPublished only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the tableNot drawn: Artificial Analysis 78.2% at another setting, Oct 27, 2026. Source
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run42.7%Hallucination rate 20% in the same run (lower is better)Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Effort: xhigh. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. SpeechMap tested it through OpenRouter at medium reasoning and counted 34.4% of requests denied and 1.4% evaded.64.1%0.1% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: medium. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by xAI or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • Grok 4.7 lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens. For prompts under 200K tokens; $4 / $12 at 200K or more, as OpenRouter lists it. xAI pricing, Oct 27, 2026.
  • Grok 4.7, at extra-high effort, writes 88.8 output tokens per second on SpaceXAI's API, and its first token arrives 54 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Grok 4.617.2%
  28. Kimi K317.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. Grok 4.656.5%
  21. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Grok 4.555%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  28. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  11. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Grok 4.666%
  28. Claude Opus 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  5. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. Grok 4.693.2%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. Grok 4.642.9%
  31. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  41. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Claude Sonnet 582%
  23. GPT-5.482%
  24. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. Grok 4.680.3%
  30. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  33. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Grok 4.579.3%
  39. Claude Opus 579.3%
  40. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  30. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Releases

Every Grok release we track, newest first.

  1. Grok 4.7xAI's Grok release for agentic coding and multistep work. API model grok-4.7, with a 500K-token context window on the xAI API, Microsoft Foundry, and OpenRouter, and 524,288 tokens on Amazon Bedrock and Google Cloud.CurrentSep 21, 2026
  2. Grok 4.6xAI's Grok release for coding, agentic tasks and knowledge work, which xAI's release notes credit to SpaceXSI. API model grok-4.6 with a 500K-token context window at US$2 per million input tokens and US$6 per million output tokens below 200K prompt tokens, twice that above; also on Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud and Microsoft Foundry (preview), and in GitHub Copilot and Cursor. xAI's models page points code and other text work to Grok 4.7.CurrentAug 12, 2026
  3. Grok 4.5xAI's Grok release for coding, agentic tasks and knowledge work, which xAI's release notes credit to SpaceXSI. API model grok-4.5 with a 500K-token context window at US$2 per million input tokens and US$6 per million output tokens below 200K prompt tokens, twice that above; also in Cursor, and listed in GitHub Copilot although GitHub announced its Copilot deprecation for October 19, 2026. xAI's models page points code and other text work to Grok 4.7.CurrentJul 8, 2026

What practitioners report

Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Cost.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Grok 4.7 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Grok 4.7 on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Grok 4.7 and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisGrok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5Claude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured output38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long context42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 92 accounts behind Grok 4.7's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, LMArena, the Cursor forum and the web for accounts that name Grok 4.7.

Quality and reasoning 43%

  • Favorable
    amongst the leading models in intelligence

    Artificial Analysis - Grok 4.7. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Grok 4.7 (reasoning).

  • Favorable
    I can say with confidence that Grok 4.7 is a great code reviewer

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. simondotau, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 in a three-model code review workflow alongside Opus 5.5.

  • Favorable
    grok 4.7 are actually good enough for most tasks

    Why isn't the industry freaking out about DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. vorticalbox, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor at work.

  • Favorable
    the top models like Gemini 3.8 Flash or Grok 4.7 can one shot most puzzles

    Mistral Large 4. pampas, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 6, 2026. Grok 4.7 on the author's Redactle puzzle benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Grok 4.7 is near the top of the board. A significant improvement over Grok 4.6

    Grok 4.7. pampas, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on the Redactle LLM benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7 is below the line and GPT 6 Sol is above the line

    GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price. mchusma, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Grok 4.7 for serious coding and agentic work.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7 was horrible, and for mundane tasks I am relying on DeepSeek Flash 4.1

    Claude Opus 5.5. meerita, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 for coding.

  • Unfavorable
    It seems to be better than Grok 4.7

    MiMo v2.6. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 medium against MiMo v2.6 on the author's aibenchy tests.

  • Favorable
    It's definitely gotten better at image->html workflows

    Grok 4.7. jjcm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on an image-to-HTML build compared with GPT 6 Astra.

  • Favorable
    I tried in Cursor and see a lot of improvements over Grok 4.6 svgs

    Grok 4.7. forgot-my-pw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor on SVG drawing.

  • Unfavorable
    ignore the AGENTS.md instructions, corrupt plan files

    Grok 4.7. Saline9515, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on launch day in the Oh-my-pi agent harness.

  • Favorable
    4.7 is better at "I want the button to cancel the jobs, dont make any mistakes"

    Grok 4.7. the_sleaze_, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 for implementation tasks.

  • Unfavorable
    It's a real dud IMO, worse than 4.6

    Grok 4.7. joegibbs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 on WebGL, image composition and webhook debugging.

  • Favorable
    Grok 4.7 is even a step up from that!

    Ask HN: Anybody else enjoying Cursor's native (xAI) models?. manlymuppet, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Grok 4.7 as a Cursor built-in model on the $20 plan.

  • Unfavorable
    Sol is normally better than Grok 4.7 of course

    Siri is so bad at everything. modeless, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. Grok 4.7 compared with Sol, including voice mode.

  • Unfavorable
    complete the task in the laziest way possible

    Grok 4.7. leftbehind, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.6 at high and xhigh through Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok repeatedly failed to execute the instructions and produced substantial amounts of code that gave the appearance of progress

    reedcode on X: Grok 4.7 at xhigh in Cursor. reedcode, X user, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh effort in Cursor on the legacy Cursor Ultra plan, Goal Mode.

  • Unfavorable
    the output is still not usable for real frontend work

    BridgeBench on X: Grok 4.7 lava lamp test. BridgeBench, independent vibe coding benchmark, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 on BridgeBench's lava lamp test against Grok 4.6.

  • Unfavorable
    i found composer was much better with coding

    Michael Rizzo on X: Grok 4.7 high fast in Cursor. Michael Rizzo, computer repair shop owner who builds AI assistants, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 high fast in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    all the problems were connected to the code generated by Grok4.7

    viprymr on X: problems from Grok4.7 code. viprymr, X user, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Grok 4.7 (Grok4.7) generating two sets of features.

  • Unfavorable
    Every model is much better now

    Mithil Yaganti on X: a month since Grok-4.7. Mithil Yaganti, LLM tester building agentic benchmarks, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 (Grok-4.7) against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017.

  • Favorable
    Among models in their native harnesses, Grok 4.7 + Grok Build now ranks 4th

    Benchmarking Grok 4.7. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh reasoning effort, and Grok 4.7 with Grok Build on the Coding Agent Index.

  • Favorable
    Rules and conventions I had given the model were respected and followed.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #193 by Parag_Chhibber. Parag Chhibber, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor at xhigh-fast, xhigh, high, medium and low.

  • Favorable
    there's a clear overall improvement over Grok 4.6

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #144 by Rodolfo_Hoffmann. Rodolfo Hoffmann, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor at xHigh with the 500k context.

  • Unfavorable
    Capable but flawed. I'm back to using 4.6 as my primary.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #110 by Bill_Cavalieri. Bill Cavalieri, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build and Cursor over 4 billion tokens on a PowerPC-to-ARM64 emulator project.

  • Unfavorable
    Really poor ability to persist and reason through simple problems

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #99 by Joolian. Joolian, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor over two days.

  • Unfavorable
    tried grok 4.7 and found it grossly inadequate

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #84 by Michael_Oliver. Michael Oliver, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor on a team-agreed plan of action.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7 is really poor in analysis task as compared to Grok4.6

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #151 by Priyesh. Priyesh, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor for analysis, coding and debugging.

  • Unfavorable
    the language was riddled with completely nonsensical metaphors

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #34 by Alexander_Lachmann. Alexander Lachmann, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor revising a handbook of about 30 modules.

  • Favorable
    I found Grok 4.7 to be more reliable than 4.6

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #169 by Branko_Radovanovic. Branko Radovanovic, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor for brainstorming, analysis and plan execution.

  • Favorable
    otherwise it is an excellent model. 9/10

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #64 by Juniya-Sankara. Juniya-Sankara, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor.

  • Favorable
    It is more accurate in most cases

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #86 by Congzhi. Congzhi, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    its performance does not show significant improvement or advantage over 4.6

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #87 by SilasMeng. SilasMeng, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh fast in Cursor for backend and desktop development.

  • Unfavorable
    After Opus reviews the code, it finds 10-15 problems in simplest features.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #129 by Vladislav_Takaev. Vladislav Takaev, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Grok in Cursor, posted in the Grok 4.7 thread.

  • Unfavorable
    Makes basic logic mistakes. Does not follow instructions.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #133 by Marco_Taboga. Marco Taboga, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor after Grok 4.6.

  • Unfavorable
    less capable than Grok 4.6

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #180 by elliottlawson. elliottlawson, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor.

  • Favorable
    follows instructions well

    Ben Davis on X: a day with Grok 4.7. Ben Davis, X user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build on the $300 SuperGrok Heavy plan, including fast mode.

  • Favorable
    Much better attention to detail.

    Zack Jackson on X: testing Grok 4.7. Zack Jackson (ScriptedAlchemy), infrastructure architect at ByteDance, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 over a week of testing, including a 70-hour goal run with the 500k context window.

  • Unfavorable
    It doesn't hold a candle to Claude Opus 5.5.

    Mike P on X: Grok vs Claude test. Mike P, X user, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build as a worker model for big builds, compared with Claude Opus 5.5.

  • Favorable
    Grok 4.7 is a huge upgrade over the last version, with better writing skills

    Mark Kretschmann on X: Grok 4.7 in the Grok app. Mark Kretschmann, software engineer writing on AI and tech, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Grok 4.7 in the Grok app for chat and research.

Tool use and structured output 38%

Long context 42%

Developer experience 25%

Cost 19%

  • Favorable
    reasonably priced when comparing to other models of similar price

    Artificial Analysis - Grok 4.7. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Grok 4.7 (reasoning).

  • Unfavorable
    4.7 is definitely slower & more expensive. It feels kind of like they really had it burn tokens

    Grok 4.7. mchusma, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on launch day for coding and agentic workflows.

  • Unfavorable
    better than Grok 4.7 and a lot cheaper in my tests

    MiMo v2.6. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 medium against MiMo v2.6 on the author's aibenchy tests.

  • Unfavorable
    grok4.7 cache reads are more expensive than sol's

    Grok 4.7. attentive, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 API cache pricing.

  • Unfavorable
    Long running agentic workflows are dominated by cache reads. Just makes Grok sound deceptive

    Grok 4.7. GodelNumbering, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 API pricing from the launch comparison.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7 is hardly cheaper than Fable 5.1 Low and performs similarly

    Grok 4.7. user43928, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on the launch CursorBench cost per task chart.

  • Unfavorable
    it's not very token efficient

    Grok 4.7. forgot-my-pw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor on SVG drawing.

  • Unfavorable
    intelligent, but expensive.

    Samsung TV privacy issues. nekitamo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 on the author's Ghidrasql crackme reverse engineering benchmark.

  • Favorable
    has made the value proposition for Cursor really incredible for me

    Ask HN: Anybody else enjoying Cursor's native (xAI) models?. manlymuppet, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Grok 4.7 as a Cursor built-in model on the $20 plan.

  • Favorable
    For me and what I'm doing that's insanely good value

    Grok 4.7. everfrustrated, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok in Cursor on the $60 plan, with the Grok 4.7 update's context size toggle.

  • Unfavorable
    double token use (the one thing Grok was good at was low reasoning usage!) to gain 5% in the benchmark score

    Grok 4.7. oh_no, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 Artificial Analysis token use on launch.

  • Unfavorable
    Its actual token drain if you are paying API rates is generally far higher than Fable, Astra et al

    Grok 4.7. leftbehind, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.6 at high and xhigh through Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    an entire month's credits of the legacy Cursor Ultra plan produced just 2 of 29 tasks coded properly

    reedcode on X: Grok 4.7 at xhigh in Cursor. reedcode, X user, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh effort in Cursor on the legacy Cursor Ultra plan, Goal Mode.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7: $0.35, 15m 46s 50% more expensive

    BridgeBench on X: Grok 4.7 lava lamp test. BridgeBench, independent vibe coding benchmark, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 on BridgeBench's lava lamp test against Grok 4.6.

  • Unfavorable
    it put me on grok 4.7 high fast which burned through x premium in 3 days

    Michael Rizzo on X: Grok 4.7 high fast in Cursor. Michael Rizzo, computer repair shop owner who builds AI assistants, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 high fast in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    whatever Grok does, Deepseek v4.1 flash 1017 does it and at much lower cost

    Mithil Yaganti on X: a month since Grok-4.7. Mithil Yaganti, LLM tester building agentic benchmarks, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 (Grok-4.7) against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017.

  • Unfavorable
    long context bills 2x, 3x with Fast

    Jay on X: quota tip for Grok Bot and Cursor. Jay, builder of small internet products, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 High in Grok Bot and Cursor.

  • Favorable
    This saves a lot on the usage whilst building great tools

    Enoch Otabil on X: Grok 4.7 for planning. Enoch Otabil, RAN engineer, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 medium in Cursor for planning.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok Build costs ~4x more per token than Sol

    ccl on X: usage breakdown, Sol against grok-4.7-build. ccl, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 (grok-4.7-build) in Grok Build against gpt-6.1-sol.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7's gains come with higher token usage

    Benchmarking Grok 4.7. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh reasoning effort, and Grok 4.7 with Grok Build on the Coding Agent Index.

  • Unfavorable
    The much lower cache hit rate is making my quota usage unusually high.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #41 by suzumiya. suzumiya, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor at about 8M tokens.

  • Favorable
    it is cheaper so I am able to do more, that alone makes it worth it

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #64 by Juniya-Sankara. Juniya-Sankara, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    Token expenditure has definitely increased with Grok 4.7.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #73 by Dan_Livingstone. Dan Livingstone, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 23, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor with 256k and 500k context settings.

  • Unfavorable
    Medium with Fast on burns the Cursor Models pool very quickly.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #111 by ilyachase. ilyachase, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 Medium in Cursor with Fast on and off.

  • Unfavorable
    after I switched to Grok 4.7 I ran out from Cursor budget for last month

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #161 by DjWarmonger. DjWarmonger, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Grok 4.7 at high in Cursor with a full plan and rules.

  • Unfavorable
    It drains my Ultra tokens at a dizzying speed

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #177 by Giang_Nguyen2. Giang Nguyen, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor on two Ultra plans.

  • Favorable
    It did this in like <5 minutes and for pennies.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #37 by Warren_James. Warren James, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor converting a logo to SVG.

  • Unfavorable
    super spendy for what I was able to get out of it

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #18 by tiz.io. tiz.io, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    But price is a huge issue

    Ben Davis on X: a day with Grok 4.7. Ben Davis, X user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build on the $300 SuperGrok Heavy plan, including fast mode.

Speed 29%

  • Favorable
    At 89 tokens per second, Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) is faster than average

    Artificial Analysis - Grok 4.7. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Grok 4.7 (reasoning).

  • Unfavorable
    didn't even retain the blazing fast performance of Grok 4.5

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. simondotau, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 in a three-model code review workflow alongside Opus 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    it is so slow that i haven't been making fast progress today with benchmarking it

    Grok 4.7. mchusma, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 on launch day for coding and agentic workflows.

  • Favorable
    Very fast and intelligent, but expensive.

    Samsung TV privacy issues. nekitamo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 on the author's Ghidrasql crackme reverse engineering benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Overlapping the latencies makes a huge difference in responsiveness

    Grok 4.7. octoberfranklin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. the new Groks on the Grok 4.7 launch thread, agentic use.

  • Unfavorable
    the price went up, the speed went down

    BridgeBench on X: Grok 4.7 lava lamp test. BridgeBench, independent vibe coding benchmark, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 on BridgeBench's lava lamp test against Grok 4.6.

  • Favorable
    Speed: Grok 4.7 (Low/Fast)

    Samuel Piatanesi on X: AI models setup, October 2026. Samuel Piatanesi, freelance software engineer and CTO at Mine Crime, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 at Low/Fast in his October 2026 model setup.

  • Unfavorable
    In practice that made simple chat questions slow.

    xAI: grok-4.7 gets no reasoning.effort (allowlist stops at grok-4.6), so the setting is silently ignored. woutersamaey, GitHub user running Hermes Agent, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 (grok-4.7) on xai-oauth through the Responses API in Hermes Agent.

  • Unfavorable
    even the fast variant feels quite slow at the moment

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #31 by savicbo. savicbo, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.7 Fast in Cursor on launch day.

  • Favorable
    worked amazingly fast which i though was impressive

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #34 by Alexander_Lachmann. Alexander Lachmann, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor revising a handbook of about 30 modules.

  • Unfavorable
    It tends to be slow though.

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #169 by Branko_Radovanovic. Branko Radovanovic, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor for brainstorming, analysis and plan execution.

  • Unfavorable
    4.7 takes longer to complete tasks and consumes more tokens

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #87 by SilasMeng. SilasMeng, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Grok 4.7 at xhigh fast in Cursor for backend and desktop development.

  • Unfavorable
    It still takes so much time while it thinks

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #129 by Vladislav_Takaev. Vladislav Takaev, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Grok in Cursor, posted in the Grok 4.7 thread.

  • Unfavorable
    spent like 10 minutes

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #161 by DjWarmonger. DjWarmonger, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Grok 4.7 at high in Cursor with a full plan and rules.

  • Unfavorable
    Every single task takes over 60 minutes just to locate where the issue is

    Share your Thoughts on Grok 4.7 - #177 by Giang_Nguyen2. Giang Nguyen, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor on two Ultra plans.

  • Unfavorable
    very slow, even when I set the

    Grok 4.7 is very very very slow - #17 by Safwan_Hossain. Safwan Hossain, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor with Fast enabled.

  • Unfavorable
    Any request that I did that previously would take 2-3 minutes, now takes at least 5-15 minutes.

    Grok 4.7 is very very very slow - #25 by sebaherrera07. sebaherrera07, Cursor community forum user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Cursor over the past weeks.

  • Favorable
    and the "fast mode" is very fast

    Ben Davis on X: a day with Grok 4.7. Ben Davis, X user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build on the $300 SuperGrok Heavy plan, including fast mode.

  • Unfavorable
    Grok 4.7 is way slower, costs about the same, and the output is usually worse.

    Mike P on X: Grok vs Claude test. Mike P, X user, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Grok 4.7 in Grok Build as a worker model for big builds, compared with Claude Opus 5.5.

Reliability 22%