Meta (Llama) vs xAI (Grok)
Meta (Llama) (8 models) vs xAI (Grok) (5 models) - compared across composite scores, pricing, capabilities, and context windows.
Meta (Llama)
View all modelsxAI (Grok)
View all modelsHead-to-Head: Meta (Llama) vs xAI (Grok) Model Matchups
| Meta (Llama) | Score | vs | xAI (Grok) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 4 Maverick | 68 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | 88 | |
| Llama 3.3 70B Instruct | 67 | Grok 4.5 | 89 | |
| Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | 65 | Grok 4.3 | 89 | |
| Llama 4 Scout | 55 | Grok Build 0.1 | 40 | |
| Llama 3.1 8B Instruct | 45 | Grok 4.20 | 89 |
Capability Comparison
| Capability | Meta (Llama) | xAI (Grok) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
Vision | 3/8 | 5/5 | xAI (Grok) |
Reasoning | 0/8 | 5/5 | xAI (Grok) |
Function Calling | 5/8 | 4/5 | Meta (Llama) |
JSON Mode | 7/8 | 5/5 | Meta (Llama) |
Web Search | 0/8 | 5/5 | xAI (Grok) |
Streaming | 8/8 | 5/5 | Meta (Llama) |
Image Output | 0/8 | 0/5 | Tie |
Pricing Comparison
| Metric | Meta (Llama) | xAI (Grok) |
|---|---|---|
| Cheapest Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.027 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct | $1.00 Grok Build 0.1 |
| Cheapest Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.080 | $2.00 |
| Most Expensive Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.400 Llama 4 Maverick | $2.00 Grok 4.5 |
| Most Expensive Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.800 | $6.00 |
| Free Models | 0 | 0 |
| Max Context Window | 1.3M | 2.0M |
All Meta (Llama) Models (8)
| Model | Score | Input $/M | Output $/M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 4 Maverick | 68 | $0.200 | $0.800 |
| Llama 3.3 70B Instruct | 67 | $0.100 | $0.320 |
| Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | 65 | $0.400 | $0.400 |
| Llama 4 Scout | 55 | $0.100 | $0.300 |
| Llama 3.1 8B Instruct | 45 | $0.050 | $0.080 |
| Llama Guard 4 12B | 40 | $0.180 | $0.180 |
| Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | 34 | $0.050 | $0.330 |
| Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | 18 | $0.027 | $0.201 |
All xAI (Grok) Models (5)
| Model | Score | Input $/M | Output $/M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grok 4.5 | 89 | $2.00 | $6.00 |
| Grok 4.3 | 89 | $1.25 | $2.50 |
| Grok 4.20 | 89 | $1.25 | $2.50 |
| Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | 88 | $1.25 | $2.50 |
| Grok Build 0.1 | 40 | $1.00 | $2.00 |
More Provider Comparisons
Compare any two AI providers side-by-side.
xAI focuses on premium performance with all 10 models supporting function calling (9/10) and web search (10/10), compared to Meta's 7/14 and 0/14 respectively. This capability-first approach explains why Grok 4.1 Fast hits 75/100 while Llama 4 Maverick peaks at 54/100, though it means abandoning the budget segment entirely.
Despite having 14 open-source models versus xAI's 0, Meta lags significantly in reasoning (0/14 models) and web search (0/14), while xAI delivers reasoning in 8/10 models and web search across all 10. The open-source advantage doesn't translate to capability leadership, with Meta's 1.0M max context falling short of xAI's 2.0M.
Meta provides vision in 4/14 models starting from budget tiers, while xAI offers it in 5/10 models but exclusively at premium prices ($0.500+/M minimum). For cost-sensitive vision tasks, Meta's lower-performing but affordable options make sense; for production applications where the 75/100 vs 54/100 quality gap matters, xAI's premium vision models justify their 12.5x higher starting price.
xAI's strategy targets enterprise deployments where every model includes premium features like web search (10/10) and near-universal function calling (9/10), justifying prices from $0.500-$15.00/M tokens. Meta's free tier and $0.040/M entry point reflect its developer ecosystem focus, trading off advanced capabilities for accessibility across its 14-model lineup.
Meta distributes its 14 models across performance tiers to serve different budgets, resulting in a 34/100 portfolio average but maximum flexibility. xAI maintains quality consistency with its 10-model lineup never dropping below mid-tier performance, evident in 8/10 models supporting reasoning versus Meta's 0/14, though this philosophy eliminates budget options entirely.