There for awhile it seemed like we’d have 3 big competitors but then Grok 4.2 or 4.4 was just diabolical while OAI and Claude continued their significant improvements. Grok was/is so bad that I was convinced musk was gonna shut it down and just fund Anthropic compute once they reached their compute agreement.
Unless they produce the same token output on the face of it, it looks like they're trying to cover for 4.7 not having good model perf?
- grok 4.6 (xhigh): 97M (for 44 score)
- grok 4.7 (xhigh): 240M (for 46 score)
From their headline comparison:
Grok: $2/$6 per million
Fable: $10/$50 per million
What this doesn't say: Grok costs 0.50/M cache read, Fable $0.25/M cache read
Just makes Grok sound deceptive, and more importantly, reliant on user's lack of understanding of costs aka predatory (which in turn is more infuriating)
It is the same multiplier for Sol with subscription. For Astra though the multiplier is ≈20x, so half of Sol usage.
For Claude it seems to be ≈40x too for Opus, but less for Fable (similar to Astra in GPT).
All on the most expensive plan. Previously, Grok usage escalated linearly from the $100 plan to $300 plan. That would be a really good $100 plan if it is still true.
Some sources:
1. https://x.com/kunchenguid/status/2098256018836963382
2. https://x.com/stevenzhang/status/2092110386569089311
3. https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/43731
For me and what I’m doing that’s insanely good value.
I find grok build chews through my SuperGrok sub very quick - but I think that is due to it having the 500k context window which uses more credits. Cursor limits it to 256K (tho I see in today’s update for Grok 4.7 there’s now a toggle for context size).