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 shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Grok 4.5 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Mistral: Mistral Nemo is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
Grok 4 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum 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 coding and reasoning — fast.
Choose Grok 4 when coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
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.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Best cost-per-solved-task coding agent — efficiency over ceiling.
Strong coding value with 2M context — an underrated pick at this price.
Top SWE Marathon score at 29% pass@1 — beats Claude Opus 4.8 (26%) and Fable 5 (24%) on long sessions
Exceptional token efficiency: ~16K output tokens per SWE-bench Pro task, ~4.2x fewer than Opus 4.8
$2/$6 per 1M — roughly 60–80% cheaper per solved task than Opus-class and GPT-5.6-class rivals
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
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 4.5 wins on more categories — coding, reasoning, research. Grok 4 is the better pick when coding and research at competitive pricing with maximum context. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
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). Claude Fable 5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Grok 4.5 and Grok 4 have similar speed profiles — rated fast.