grok-4.3 vs grok-4.7
Fourteen priced metrics for the same 2,000-in / 300-out call, with and without provider caching, and what TokenZero's cascade would do with the pair.
At list prices as of 2026-10-26, grok-4.3 costs $1.41 per million blended tokens on a 2,000-in / 300-out call against $2.52 for grok-4.7, 44% less. With the static prefix cached both drop further: $1.68 versus $3.55 per thousand calls. TokenZero routes only prompts its classifier scores simple and holds a 99.8% parity floor.
· Source: provider list prices verified in pricing table 2026-10-26; costs computed by the same code that signs TokenZero receipts
At a glance
- Cheaper per blended token
- grok-4.3 by 44% (computed)
- grok-4.3 blended $/1M
- $1.41 (computed)
- grok-4.7 blended $/1M
- $2.52 (computed)
- Input $/1M
- $1.25 vs $2.00
- Output $/1M
- $2.50 vs $6.00
- Cached input $/1M
- $0.200 vs $0.500
- Cache discount
- 84% vs 75% (computed)
- Monthly at 100k calls
- $325 vs $580 (computed)
- Saved per 1M calls
- $2,550 (computed)
- Providers
- xai vs xai
- Lifecycle
- active, no retirement announced vs active, no retirement announced
- Parity floor for routing
- 99.8% (shadow-eval breaker)
grok-4.3 vs grok-4.7: list prices and the same workload on both (USD, table 2026-10-26)
| Metric | grok-4.3 | grok-4.7 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider · tier | xai · mid | xai · frontier | same provider |
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $2.00 | 37.5% gap |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $6.00 | 58.3% gap |
| Cached input $/1M | $0.200 | $0.500 | 84% / 75% off input |
| Cache write $/1M | no surcharge | no surcharge | |
| Minimum cacheable prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens | |
| Effective blended $/1M (2,000 in / 300 out) | $1.41 | $2.52 | grok-4.3 44% less |
| Per call | $0.00325 | $0.00580 | $0.00255 |
| Per month at 100k calls | $325 | $580 | $255 |
| …with the 1,500-token prefix cached | $168 | $355 | $188 |
| Long-context threshold | 200,000 tokens ($2.50 in / $5.00 out above) | 200,000 tokens ($4.00 in / $12.00 out above) | |
| Processing tiers | standard only | standard only | |
| Lifecycle | active, no retirement announced | active, no retirement announced | |
| Cheaper sibling (cascade target) | — | grok-4.3 | |
| TokenZero cascade recommendation | grok-4.7 → grok-4.3 | $2,550 saved per 1M calls if every call moved; $1,020 at a 40% simple-prompt share | 99.8% parity floor, breaker on |
Use either model through TokenZero
OPENAI_BASE_URL=https://tokenzero.sh/v1
# keep your own keys; cache formatting on, routing advisory, signed receipt per callFree up to $500/month of routed spend; paid plans take 15% of verified savings with a 3x-ROI-or-$0 rule.
What is not on this page
Third-party quality scores (coding ELO, extraction accuracy, reasoning benchmarks) and per-model latency are not shown because TokenZero does not measure them; the numbers above are prices and the arithmetic on them. The latency benchmark shows what the gateway does measure.
Questions people ask
Which is cheaper, grok-4.3 or grok-4.7?
grok-4.3. At list prices as of 2026-10-26 it costs $1.41 per million blended tokens versus $2.52 for grok-4.7, a 44% gap on a 2,000-input / 300-output call. Per month at 100,000 calls that is $325 versus $580.
How much does prompt caching change the grok-4.3 vs grok-4.7 gap?
Cached input costs $0.200 on grok-4.3 and $0.500 on grok-4.7 per million. With a 1,500-token static prefix cached, 100,000 calls cost $168 and $355 respectively; TokenZero's formatter places the breakpoints and sets prompt_cache_key automatically.
Can TokenZero route grok-4.7 traffic to grok-4.3 safely?
Yes, within xai: with X-TokenZero-Cascade: auto the classifier scores each prompt and only simple ones move; shadow evaluation re-runs a sample on grok-4.7 and a pair below 99.8% parity is auto-disabled. Moving every call would save $2,550 per million calls; at a 40% simple share it is $1,020.
Is grok-4.3 or grok-4.7 being retired?
grok-4.3: active, no retirement announced. grok-4.7: active, no retirement announced. TokenZero audits flag retired ids and the gateway warns in X-TokenZero-Warning with the provider's replacement.