# GPT-4 vs Grok 4.7

> Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-4-vs-grok-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.1 to 35.0.
- Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $60 for GPT-4.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 8K.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 46.6 |
| Rank | 308 | 56 |
| Context | 8K | 500K |
| Input $/M | $30 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GPT-4: 31.2 (#277)
- Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1254 | 1423 |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1636 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.4% |
| WeirdML | 12.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.2% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 79.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-4: —
- Grok 4.7: —

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| METR Time Horizons | 36.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-4: 17.3 (#285)
- Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1409 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 76.8% |
| CritPt | — | 17.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 62.7% | — |
| LMCA | 17.1% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 75.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.88 | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.8 | — |
| HellaSwag | 95.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 87.5% | — |

## Math

- GPT-4: 10.1 (#304)
- Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1269 | 1393 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 34% |
| MATH Level 5 | 23% | — |
| GSM8K | 92% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-4: 18.4 (#277)
- Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1211 | 1413 |
| GPQA Diamond | 35.7% | — |
| MMLU | 86.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 84.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-4: —
- Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20.8% |

## Multilingual

- GPT-4: 40.8 (#210)
- Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1246 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1476 |
| LMArena Russian | 1251 | 1396 |
| LMArena French | 1282 | — |
| LMArena German | 1251 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1261 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-4: 65.5 (#217)
- Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1241 | 1406 |

## Long Context

- GPT-4: 37.7 (#207)
- Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1244 | 1416 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-4: 35.0 (#263)
- Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1263 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1244 | 1391 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 752 | 2007 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1257 | 1389 |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-4 better than Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-4 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; GPT-4 lists at $30 and $60.

### Is GPT-4 or Grok 4.7 better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-4 and Grok 4.7 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 has 38 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 21.