Skip to content
trending

Benchmarks

Grok 4.7: Full Benchmark Table and Pricing at Launch

2 USD per million input tokens with a new base model. Seven benchmarks, three wins, triple advantage in legal work. Launched September 21, 2026.

By 5 min read
Grok 4.7: Full Benchmark Table and Pricing at Launch

👁 123 reads

Grok 4.7 launched on September 21, 2026, and the most interesting number isn’t in any benchmark. The model got a new, larger base model and longer training, yet it’s served at the same price as Grok 4.6: 2 dollars per million input tokens and 6 per million output tokens. For comparison, top-tier competitors charge 10 and 50.

Verdict in One Paragraph

This isn’t a model that wins every benchmark - it’s a model that wins on performance-to-price ratio. In coding it trails the strongest competition, but costs five times less on input and over eight times less on output. However, there are three areas where Grok 4.7 wins outright: electronics, legal work, and safety. In the legal test, the difference is threefold in its favor.

Pricing Alongside Results - Full Table

The maker did something rarely done: they put pricing in the same table as benchmarks. Below is the complete set, as of launch day.

Grok 4.7 xHigh Grok 4.6 High GPT-5.6 Sol Max Fable 5.1 Max
Input (per million tokens) 2 USD 2 USD 4 USD 10 USD
Output (per million tokens) 6 USD 6 USD 20 USD 50 USD
CursorBench 4.0 - coding 46.3% 40.4% 41.7% 51.8%
DeepSWE v1.1 71.0%* 65.2% 72.7% 70.0%
EEBench - electronics 64.0% 53.0% 39.4% 56.4%
AA Briefcase - office work 1,657 1,546 1,487 1,678
Terminal-Bench 4.0 38.0% 20.3% 37.3% 57.9%
Harvey - legal work 19.6% 15.8% 2.5% 6.7%
HealthBench Professional 56.7% 48.5% 60.5% 62.1%

The asterisk by DeepSWE indicates a result in high-effort mode.

Three Things This Table Tells You

1. It’s Not the Best at Coding and Nobody’s Hiding It

On CursorBench 4.0, Grok 4.7 scores 46.3% versus a competitor’s 51.8%. On Terminal-Bench the gap is much larger: 38.0% versus 57.9%. These aren’t results you can gloss over - and the maker doesn’t gloss over them, because they published them alongside their own.

What makes a difference, though: this same Grok 4.7 jumped from Grok 4.6’s 20.3% to 38.0% on Terminal-Bench - nearly double, within a single generation.

Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark: 19.6% for Grok 4.7, 6.7% for the strongest competitor, and 2.5% for the next one. That’s a threefold and eightfold difference, not a few percentage points.

This is an opinion: when one model beats the rest by an order of magnitude on a narrow benchmark, it usually means it was deliberately trained for that type of task. This doesn’t diminish the result - but before making a purchase decision, you should check whether your work resembles what this particular test measures.

3. Electronics Without Competition

EEBench: 64.0% versus 56.4% and 39.4%. On electrical engineering tasks, the advantage is clear, and the gap versus one competitor is 25 percentage points.

What Changed Under the Hood

The maker lists four things, and all are consistent with what you see in the results:

  • New, larger base model than in Grok 4.6
  • Longer reinforcement training on a harder task set, weighted toward problems taking many hours
  • Better self-verification and long-context handling
  • Native understanding of its own agentic environment - hence the improvement in conversational and office tasks

Weighting training toward multi-hour tasks explains the jump on Terminal-Bench and in office work. These are exactly the tests where persistence matters, not brilliance in a single step.

Safety - and Here Are Concrete Numbers

This is usually the foggiest part of launch announcements, but here two numbers were given:

  • 62.4% on a biological safety test conducted by an external entity - the highest score in the comparison
  • 3.3% of risky dual-use queries passed on HackerBench, while rarely blocking legitimate security work

That second number is more interesting than it looks. It’s easy to build a model that refuses everything - harder to build one that refuses dangerous things but doesn’t interfere with a security professional’s normal work. Here, both are claimed at once.

What It Actually Costs

Let’s convert to something tangible. Assume a task consuming one million input tokens and 200 thousand output tokens - roughly a longer session working with large context.

Model Input Output Total
Grok 4.7 2.00 USD 1.20 USD 3.20 USD
GPT-5.6 Sol 4.00 USD 4.00 USD 8.00 USD
Fable 5.1 10.00 USD 10.00 USD 20.00 USD

The difference on one task is 16.80 USD versus the most expensive option - with a hundred such tasks per month, that becomes 1,680 USD.

A fast variant is also available: double output speed for double the price.

Where You Can Use It Starting Today

The model is available in Cursor and in the maker’s build environment, through API, in external coding tools, and through model routers and cloud platforms.

Who It’s For and Who It’s Not For

Situation Verdict
High query volume, budget matters Yes. The price advantage is decisive here
Legal work, document analysis Yes. Threefold advantage in the benchmark
Electrical engineering Yes. Best result in the comparison
Long agentic tasks Worth checking. Big jump versus predecessor
Most difficult programming tasks No. Competition clearly higher, though more expensive
Medical applications No. HealthBench favors competition

Frequently Asked Questions

How Much Does Grok 4.7 Cost?

Starting at 2 USD per million input tokens and 6 USD per million output tokens - the same as Grok 4.6. The fast variant costs twice as much and has twice the output speed.

Is Grok 4.7 Better Than Grok 4.6?

In all seven published benchmarks, yes. The biggest jump is Terminal-Bench: from 20.3% to 38.0%. And the price hasn’t changed.

Is Grok 4.7 the Best Model for Coding?

No. On CursorBench 4.0 it scores 46.3% versus 51.8% for the strongest competitor. But it’s significantly cheaper, so the question is really: how much are you willing to pay extra for those five points.

Where Can I Use It?

In Cursor, in the maker’s build environment, through API, in external coding tools, and on cloud platforms and model routers.

Is There a Free Version?

The maker provides free access through their build environment - details on the project page.

Google · Your sourcesQuantslant higher in your Google - one clickAdd to preferred sources →

Sources and Date Checked

All pricing, benchmark results, and description of changes come from the maker’s official announcement of September 21, 2026, accessed the same day: x.ai/news/grok-4-7. We did not conduct our own tests of this model - the numbers given are the maker’s declarations, including results for its competitors, which it published itself.

Kinetyra

// read next

More on this from QUANTSLANT

Piotr Olszewski

Editor and publisher · Quantslant

I edit and publish Quantslant. AI tools help with research, drafts and translation; choosing topics, running the tests, checking facts and the decision to publish are mine, and so is the responsibility for what appears here.

read nextIdeogram 4.5 Image Editing: 10 Before & After Examplesai toolsIdeogram 4.5 Image Editing: 10 Before & After Examples10 real edits in Ideogram 4.5: label changes, banner translation, menu prices, time of day, text removal. Precise mode vs regular mode tested.

Most read

  1. 1Best AI Video Generator Apps for Your Phone (2026)
  2. 2Claude Opus 5.5 Motion Graphics: 60s Showreel from One Prompt
  3. 3Wan 2.2 on RTX 4090: timings, VRAM and four test clips
// site map

This page in other languages1

Quantslant in numbers 1,423posts in archive22news from the last 7 days18video models in the observatory
🎬 AI Video Benchmarks: Higgsfield DoP vs OpenAI Sora • Higgsfield vs Runway Gen-3 • AI Video Credit Calculator
× ‹ enlarge ›