xAI Proprietary Released Sep 21, 2026 Updated
Grok 4.7
ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.
Model summary
- Text #90 / 416
399 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes only
- Vision #58 / 167
440 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes only
- Coding #16 / 147
496 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 483, tests 516
- Agents #19 / 53
490 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes only
- Price per 1M tokens
In $2.00· Out $6.00
$2.00
Input · median coding model $0.75
Summary
Grok 4.7 is xAI's model, released Sep 21, 2026. It's ranked in 4 categories and does best at coding: #16 of 147, with a ToolsGuide Score of 496 against a median of 316.
It also ranks #90 of 416 for text (399), #58 of 167 for vision (440), #19 of 53 for agents (490).
Its text and vision and agents score uses votes only, because it has published fewer than two of the tests used for those categories.
It costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens, about 2.7× the median coding model ($0.75).
It has published results on 23 tests and has the top score on 15 of them, including Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark and Harvey LAB (Vals).
Specifications
- Creator
xAI- Licence
- Proprietary
- Released
- Sep 21, 2026
- Context window
- 500K tokens
- Input price
- $2.00 / 1M
- Output price
- $6.00 / 1M
- Tests reported
- 23
- Settings ranked
- grok-4.7-xhigh, Grok 4.7 (xHigh)
Model comparison
Against the ten best coding models.
Coding score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Text score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Input price
USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better
Leaderboards
Where Grok 4.7 sits among the top 20 in each category.
Text
#90 of 416 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Vision
#58 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Coding
#16 of 147 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Agents
#19 of 53 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
By task
Scored from votes on each kind of prompt alone, on the same 1,000-point scale.
Score against price
Coding · the 10 priced models ranked closest · up and to the left is better value
Against its nearest rivals
Text prompts by kind · ToolsGuide Score from votes · hover for values
Text
grok-4.7-xhigh · hover a bar for its rank
Vision
Grok 4.7 (xHigh) · hover a bar for its rank
Coding
Grok 4.7 (xHigh) · hover a bar for its rank
Test results
Every test Grok 4.7 has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.
DeepSWE 1.1
#17 / 50DeepSWE 1.1 evaluates software engineering agents using the mini-swe-agent harness.
71.0%
Self-reported · In the coding score
Terminal-Bench 4.0
#15 / 28Terminal-Bench 4.0 evaluates AI agents on real-world work in terminal and command-line containerized environments across 66 tasks, with emphasis on science-adjacent and frontier engineering problems. Relative to earlier Terminal-Bench releases, 4.0 increases timeouts and adaptively raises RAM/CPU on selected tasks to reduce harness and resource confounds.
38.0%
Self-reported · In the coding score· In the agents score
CyberGym
#12 / 21CyberGym is a benchmark for evaluating AI agents on cybersecurity tasks, testing their ability to identify vulnerabilities, perform security analysis, and complete security-related challenges in a controlled environment.
80.3%
Self-reported
HealthBench Professional
#15 / 19HealthBench Professional evaluates model capability and safety for clinician use cases using real clinician-style chats and physician-authored grading rubrics.
56.7%
Self-reported
SWE-Marathon
#5 / 10SWE-Marathon is an ultra-long-horizon software engineering benchmark covering tasks such as building compilers, optimizing kernels, and developing production-grade services. It measures whether agents can sustain quality across extremely long engineering trajectories.
46.0%
Self-reported
AA-Briefcase v1.1
#3 / 5AA-Briefcase v1.1 evaluates multi-hour professional office work and reports Elo scores. Kept separate from unversioned AA-Briefcase results.
55.2%
Self-reported
FrontierSWE V2
#5 / 5FrontierSWE V2 evaluates agents on open-ended technical projects and reports mean@5. Kept separate from FrontierSWE V1 dominance-score results, which are not comparable.
29.0%
Self-reported
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark
#1 / 4Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark evaluates AI agents on complex legal workflows and reports the all-pass rate.
19.6%
Self-reported
CursorBench 4.0
#3 / 3CursorBench 4.0 evaluates coding agents on long-horizon coding tasks from real Cursor sessions. Version 4.0 adds longer-horizon tasks; scores are not comparable with CursorBench 3.2.
46.3%
Self-reported
Harvey LAB (Vals)
#1 / 2Harvey LAB (Vals) is a professional legal-work evaluation of AI systems on complex law-firm style tasks, reported by Vals.
19.6%
Unverified
ProtocolQA Open-Ended
#1 / 2ProtocolQA Open-Ended evaluates free-form answers on troubleshooting failed experimental outcomes from common biological laboratory protocols. Kept separate from the multiple-choice ProtocolQA split.
70.4%
Unverified
Virology Capabilities Test
#1 / 2Virology Capabilities Test (VCT) is an expert-level multiple-choice benchmark measuring the capability to troubleshoot complex virology laboratory protocols. It evaluates dual-use biological knowledge relevant to bioweapons development.
63.0%
Unverified
BixBench MCQ
#1 / 1BixBench zero-shot multiple-choice accuracy on bioinformatics questions. Kept separate from the agentic BixBench workflow evaluation that requires code execution.
88.4%
Unverified
CADGenBench
#1 / 1CADGenBench evaluates agents on CAD model construction from design prompts. The generation split requires producing CAD geometry graded for executability and geometric correctness. Distinct from BenchCAD.
44.4%
Unverified
CVE-Bench
#1 / 1CVE-Bench evaluates agents on exploiting real-world web-application CVEs in sandboxed environments that mimic production services, typically in unrestricted / egress-controlled settings as a cyber capability probe.
36.6%
Unverified
CathedralBench
#1 / 1CathedralBench is a third-party red-team cyber evaluation on highly difficult, multiple-exploit-chain tasks in egress-secure sandboxes. Accuracy is commonly reported on the hard subset of tasks in an unrestricted configuration.
29.0%
Unverified
EEBench
#1 / 1EEBench is an electrical engineering and chip design benchmark: models design circuits and other hardware that are graded for physical correctness and functionality.
66.0%
Unverified
GDPval (Elo)
#1 / 1GDPval professional knowledge-work results reported as Elo in xAI's Grok 4.7 announcement. The source does not identify this as GDPval-AA v2; kept separate from that evaluation and percentage-based GDPval scores.
56.5%
Unverified
LAB-Bench Practical
#1 / 1LAB-Bench practical is a public multiple-choice evaluation of everyday wet-lab and research skills, covering protocol troubleshooting, sequence reasoning, and cloning scenarios. Distinct from labbench2.
76.8%
Unverified
LatchBio Capabilities v1.0
#1 / 1LatchBio Capabilities v1.0 is a cross-benchmark evaluation of agentic biological data analysis. The overall score is the equally weighted mean of observed scores across 11 capability benchmarks.
44.5%
Unverified
WMDP-Bio
#1 / 1Biology subset of WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy). Multiple-choice questions measuring dual-use biology knowledge relevant to enabling malicious actors to design, synthesize, acquire, or use biological weapons.
88.1%
Unverified
WMDP-Chem
#1 / 1Chemistry subset of WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy). Multiple-choice questions measuring dual-use chemistry knowledge relevant to enabling malicious actors to design, synthesize, acquire, or use chemical weapons.
84.9%
Unverified
WMDP-Cyber
#1 / 1Cybersecurity subset of WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy). Multiple-choice questions measuring dual-use cyber knowledge relevant to enabling malicious actors to engage in offensive cyber operations.
88.1%
Unverified