| Signal | Grok 4.1 Fast | Delta | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 76 | +6 | |
Pricing | 100 | -- | |
Context window size | 100 | -- | |
Recency | 100 | +10 | |
Output Capacity | 75 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 0 wins |
Score History
78
current score
Grok 4.1 Fast
right now
72.5
current score
xAI
xAI
| Metric | Grok 4.1 Fast | Grok 4 Fast | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 78 | 73 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Rank | #52 | #80 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Quality Rank | #52 | #80 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Adoption Rank | #52 | #80 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 2000K | 2000K | -- |
| Pricing | $0.20/$0.50/M | $0.20/$0.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Benchmarks | 76 | 70 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Context window size | 100 | 100 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Recency | 100 | 90 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 75 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 78/100 (rank #52), placing it in the top 82% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 73/100 (rank #80), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
Grok 4.1 Fast has a 6-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Grok 4.1 Fast also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (2000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Grok 4.1 Fast has a moderate advantage with a 5.5-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Grok 4 Fast has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Grok 4.1 Fast
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Grok 4.1 Fast
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Grok 4.1 Fast
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Grok 4.1 Fast
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Grok 4.1 Fast
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by xAI
| Capability | Grok 4.1 Fast | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
xAI
xAI
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Grok 4.1 Fast | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 2M | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | 30,000 | 30,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Nov 19, 2025 | Sep 19, 2025 |
The ranking difference likely reflects recency bias or minor benchmark variations not captured in the overall score - both models share identical capabilities and pricing at $0.20/M input and $0.50/M output. With matching 2.0M token context windows and 30K max output, the practical difference for coding tasks is negligible, suggesting the v4.1 designation may be more of a stability or bug-fix release than a performance upgrade.
Unless you're hitting specific edge cases or bugs in v4, migration offers no measurable benefit - both versions deliver the same 75/100 coding performance at identical $0.50/M output tokens. The version bump without any capability additions (both support Vision, Function Calling, Streaming, JSON Mode, Reasoning, and Web Search) suggests this is a patch release rather than a feature upgrade.
At 75/100 score, both Grok versions are top-tier coding models with enterprise features like 2.0M context windows and multimodal support (text+image+file inputs). The pricing reflects xAI's positioning against competitors - while not the cheapest option, the combination of massive context, 30K token output capacity, and integrated web search makes them viable for complex coding workflows requiring extensive context retention.
This artificial ranking split (both at 75/100 score) actually highlights a market maturity issue - when providers release minor versions without clear differentiation, it fragments the ecosystem unnecessarily. For production systems, stick with Grok 4 Fast unless xAI explicitly deprecates it, as the identical $0.20/M input pricing and feature parity mean you're paying for the same computational resources.
The 2.0M context is actually well-utilized in modern coding scenarios - analyzing entire codebases, maintaining conversation history across long debugging sessions, or processing multiple file inputs simultaneously. At $0.50/M output tokens, you're paying a premium compared to smaller-context alternatives, but for tasks like full repository analysis or multi-file refactoring with 30K token outputs, both Grok versions deliver value that justifies their positioning.