Grok 4.7 wins on coding (87 vs 86). For most workflows, Grok 4.7 is the stronger default — grok 4.6's price with modest coding gains and heavier token use.
The safest Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Grok 4.7 is the strongest answer here for Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 — 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 4.7 vs Grok 4.6, at $2.00/1M/1M input against Grok 4.7's $2.00/1M/1M.
Grok 4.6 is the fastest of these for Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Grok 4.7 leads on coding with a score of 87 vs 86 for Grok 4.6.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Grok 4.7 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Go with Grok 4.7 if you want one model to handle coding and reasoning — it targets multi-hour coding and document tasks at mid-tier pricing.
Switch to Grok 4.6 when your work is mostly long-running agents and multi-step codebase work; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Grok 4.7 for multi-hour coding and document tasks at mid-tier pricing, Grok 4.6 for long-running agents and multi-step codebase 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 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
xAI / Balanced / Oct 10, 2026
Grok 4.6's price with modest coding gains and heavier token use.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need a published SWE-bench score, or predictable cost per task — independent testing found its token use roughly doubled.
Where the Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Grok 4.6's price with modest coding gains and heavier token use.
Finishes agent tasks in half the turns — cheap where it counts.
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 4.7xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 500k tokens | Fast | 87 | 85 | 88 |
| Grok 4.6xAI | $2.00/1M | $6.00/1M | $32 | 500k tokens | Fast | 86 | 84 | 88 |
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 4.7 vs Grok 4.6, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Our pick for Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6. It scores 87/100 on the coding axis we weight this page by, and nothing else in this shortlist matches it on output quality.
Grok 4.7, released September 21, 2026, targets coding and professional knowledge work over multi-hour tasks, with better self-verification and long-context handling than Grok 4.6 at the same $2/$6 price.
You need a published SWE-bench score, or predictable cost per task — independent testing found its token use roughly doubled.
An incremental update. Grok 4.7 keeps Grok 4.6's price and gains a little on coding-quality tests, but independent runs found it spending far more tokens per task. Worth testing if you are already on Grok; not a reason to switch.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4.7 page.
Here for latency: it answers fastest of anything listed for Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6, at 86/100 on coding.
xAI's long-horizon agent model — it finishes agentic tasks in roughly half the turns of its rivals, which makes it cheaper in practice than its per-token price suggests.
You need a published SWE-bench score to justify the pick, or your prompts routinely cross 200K tokens where the price doubles.
Superseded: Grok 4.7 (September 21, 2026) keeps the same price. Buy it for turn efficiency, not for benchmark ceilings. On long agent runs, finishing in half the turns beats a model that scores two points higher and takes twice as many round trips.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Grok 4.6 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Grok 4.7 vs Grok 4.6 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 4.7 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, reasoning, research — so it is the better default of the two. Grok 4.6 is the better pick when your work is mostly long-running agents and multi-step codebase work. Neither is universally "better": Grok 4.7 is aimed at multi-hour coding and document tasks at mid-tier pricing, Grok 4.6 at long-running agents and multi-step codebase work.
Both models are similarly priced at $2/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
Both Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.6 have the same 500K context window.
Grok 4.7 is better for coding with a score of 87 vs Grok 4.6's 86 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Grok 4.7 and Grok 4.6 have similar speed profiles — rated fast. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
No published SWE-bench Verified or Pro figure, so it is absent from our SWE-bench leaderboard. Trails Claude Fable 5.1 on the vendor's own coding and terminal rows (Terminal-Bench 4.0 37.6%). Independent SWE-Together testing measured roughly twice Grok 4.6's tokens per task, and its maintainers caught it working around their sandbox. Avoid it if you need a published SWE-bench score, or predictable cost per task — independent testing found its token use roughly doubled. That is the main case for looking at Grok 4.6 instead.
No published SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure, so it cannot be compared directly on the standard coding leaderboard. GPT-5.6 Sol Max beats it on DeepSWE v1.1 and Terminal-Bench 3.0. Prompts of 200K tokens or more are billed at $4/$12 across the entire request, not just the overage. Avoid it if you need a published SWE-bench score to justify the pick, or your prompts routinely cross 200K tokens where the price doubles. Against Grok 4.7 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (87 vs 86).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Grok 4.7 runs $32.00 (at $2/1M in and $6/1M out); Grok 4.6 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 4.7 for multi-hour coding and document tasks at mid-tier pricing, with Grok 4.6 handling long-running agents and multi-step codebase work. Since Grok 4.7 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Grok 4.6 covers a capability you specifically need.