Grok 4.5 wins on coding (94 vs 80) and price ($2 vs $3/1M input) and context window (500K vs 256K). For most workflows, Grok 4.5 is the stronger default — cost-efficient coding agent — replaced by grok 4.6 and grok 4.7.
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.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the cheaper way in for Grok 4.5 vs Grok 4, at $2.00/1M/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 80 for Grok 4.
Grok 4.5 has the larger context window: 500K vs 256K for Grok 4.
Grok 4.5 is cheaper at $2/1M input tokens vs $3/1M for Grok 4.
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Choose Grok 4 when your work is mostly historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Grok 4.5 for fast and token-efficient coding agents, Grok 4 for historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.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
Cost-efficient coding agent — replaced by Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
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.
Cost-efficient coding agent — replaced by Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
Retired May 15, 2026 — replaced by Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
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 | $3.00/1M | $15.00/1M | $60 | 256k tokens | Fast | 80 | 70 | 78 |
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 July 2025 flagship, priced at $3/$15 per million tokens with a 256K context window. Retired from xAI's API on May 15, 2026; current Grok models are Grok 4.6 and Grok 4.7.
You need the highest writing quality or the most reliable production-grade output — Claude wins both.
Retired: xAI shut down the grok-4-0709 API on May 15, 2026. It was a strong coding model at launch, at $3/$15 with a 256K window; earlier versions of this page listed $2/$6 and 2M tokens in error. Use Grok 4.7 instead.
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 historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work. Neither is universally "better": Grok 4.5 is aimed at fast and token-efficient coding agents, Grok 4 at historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work.
Grok 4.5 is cheaper at $2/1M input and $6/1M output. Grok 4 costs $3/1M input and $15/1M output.
Grok 4.5 has the larger context window at 500K tokens vs Grok 4's 256K. For large document analysis, Grok 4.5 is the stronger pick.
Grok 4.5 is better for coding with a score of 94 vs Grok 4's 80 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Grok 4.5 and Grok 4 have similar speed profiles — rated fast. 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.
Retired from xAI's API on May 15, 2026. 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 80).
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 $60.00 (at $3/1M in and $15/1M out). That is a $28.00/month difference — Grok 4.5 is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. 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 historical reference — use Grok 4.7 for new work. 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.