Grok 4.5 wins on coding (94 vs 92). Grok 4 wins on context window (2M vs 500K). For most workflows, Grok 4.5 is the stronger default — best cost-per-solved-task coding agent — efficiency over ceiling.
The safest Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Grok 4.5 is the strongest answer here for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $2.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max is the cheaper way in for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4, at $1.25/1M/1M input against Grok 4.5's $2.00/1M/1M.
Grok 4 is the fastest of these for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Grok 4.5 leads on coding with a score of 94 vs 92 for Grok 4.
Grok 4 has the larger context window: 2M vs 500K for Grok 4.5.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Choose Grok 4.5 for fast, token-efficient coding agents. Its coding and reasoning scores are what carry the recommendation here.
Choose Grok 4 when your work is mostly coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Grok 4.5 for fast and token-efficient coding agents, Grok 4 for coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
xAI / Balanced / Aug 6, 2026
Best cost-per-solved-task coding agent — efficiency over ceiling.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need the highest solve rate per attempt or verified low hallucination — Claude Opus 5 is the safer premium pick.
Where the Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Best cost-per-solved-task coding agent — efficiency over ceiling.
Strong coding value with 2M context — an underrated pick at this price.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grok 4.5xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 500k tokens | Fast | 94 | 72 | 84 |
| Grok 4xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 2M tokens | Fast | 92 | 70 | 86 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4: 94/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
xAI's first coding- and agent-focused model — the first full-scale deployment of the 1.5T-parameter V9 MoE base, trained with real developer-session data from Cursor.
You need the highest solve rate per attempt or verified low hallucination — Claude Opus 5 is the safer premium pick.
The efficiency play among coding agents. Grok 4.5 wins on cost-per-solved-task and marathon sessions, not raw capability. If your agent bill is the problem, it's the answer; if quality ceiling is the problem, it isn't.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4.5 page.
The fastest model in this shortlist for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4. Pick it when turnaround is what your readers or users notice.
xAI's latest flagship with strong coding benchmark performance, a 2M token context window, and aggressive pricing at $2/$6 per million tokens.
You need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both.
Strong coding benchmark with excellent value. The $2/$6 pricing and 2M context make it competitive with more expensive alternatives.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Grok 4.5 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, reasoning, research — so it is the better default of the two. Grok 4 is the better pick when your work is mostly coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context. Neither is universally "better": Grok 4.5 is aimed at fast and token-efficient coding agents, Grok 4 at coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context.
Both models are similarly priced at $2/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
Grok 4 has the larger context window at 2M tokens vs Grok 4.5's 500K. For large document analysis, Grok 4 is the stronger pick.
Grok 4.5 is better for coding with a score of 94 vs Grok 4's 92 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Grok 4.5 and Grok 4 have similar speed profiles — rated fast. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
Raw ceiling trails the frontier: 64.7% SWE-bench Pro vs Opus 4.8's 69.2%, with a higher reported hallucination rate. 500K context is half the frontier norm, and rates double at ≥200K prompt tokens. Avoid it if you need the highest solve rate per attempt or verified low hallucination — Claude Opus 5 is the safer premium pick. That is the main case for looking at Grok 4 instead.
Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 lead on pure coding benchmarks. Less established ecosystem and tooling than OpenAI or Anthropic. Avoid it if you need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both. Against Grok 4.5 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (94 vs 92).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Grok 4.5 runs $32.00 (at $2/1M in and $6/1M out); Grok 4 runs $32.00 (at $2/1M in and $6/1M out). The gap is small enough that price should not decide this one. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Grok 4.5 for fast and token-efficient coding agents, with Grok 4 handling coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context. Since Grok 4.5 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Grok 4 covers a capability you specifically need.