GPT-4o wins on writing quality. Grok 4 wins on coding (92 vs 58) and price ($2 vs $5/1M input) and context window (2M vs 128K). For most workflows, Grok 4 is the stronger default — strong coding value with 2m context — an underrated pick at this price.
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Grok 4 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
xAI / Balanced / Apr 29, 2026
Strong coding value with 2M context — an underrated pick at this price.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
75% SWE-bench score — strong coding performance close to top Claude models
2M token context window at $2/$6 per million tokens
Fast and responsive for exploration and open-ended research loops
Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 lead on pure coding benchmarks
Less established ecosystem and tooling than OpenAI or Anthropic
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Grok 4 wins on more categories — coding, research, reasoning. GPT-4o is the better pick when multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
Grok 4 is cheaper at $2/1M input and $6/1M output. GPT-4o costs $5/1M input and $15/1M output.
Grok 4 has the larger context window at 2M tokens vs GPT-4o's 128K. For large document analysis, Grok 4 is the stronger pick.
Grok 4 is better for coding with a score of 92 vs GPT-4o's 58. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.
Both GPT-4o and Grok 4 have similar speed profiles — rated fast.
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
GPT-4o is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
Grok 4 leads on coding with a score of 92 vs 58 for GPT-4o.
Grok 4 has the larger context window: 2M vs 128K for GPT-4o.
Grok 4 is cheaper at $2/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for GPT-4o.
Choose Grok 4 for coding and research — coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context.
Choose GPT-4o when multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
