Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7

Updated November 13, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 16 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Google logo
Gemini 4 Argon

Google

79.03/100

Supported · Public rank #8

90% interval 75.4–82.7

Model B
xAI logo
Grok 4.7

xAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

API price per 1M tokens

Gemini 4 Argon: $2 input / $10 output

Grok 4.7: $2 input / $6 output

Context window

Gemini 4 Argon: 1M

Grok 4.7: 500K

Released

Gemini 4 Argon: September 30, 2026

Grok 4.7: September 21, 2026

Shared results
16
Gemini 4 Argon only
23
Grok 4.7 only
6
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Gemini 4 ArgonHow the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Gemini 4 Argon

    Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Gemini 4 Argon

    Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

71.8Gemini 4 Argon—Grok 4.7

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

Or describe your own job

The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
74.9
Supported · #6/135
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 13 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
71.8
Supported · #9/162
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
76.5
Supported · #7/160
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
79.2
Supported · #8/180
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 4 Argon
87.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Grok 4.7
54.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 4 Argon
$0.007
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.005
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 4 Argon
$0.13
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.118
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 4 Argon
$0.16
Fits in one request
Grok 4.7
$0.2
Fits in one request

Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Your workload

Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.

Gemini 4 Argon
$40.00
per month
Grok 4.7
$32.00
per month

Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Price against score, among all priced models

Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.

Gemini 4 Argon

20406080100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$50$100Output price, $ per 1M tokens (log)Overall score
  • 2 models at the same price score higher than Gemini 4 Argon. The nearest is Gemini 4 Carbon (score 89.2, also $10.00 per 1M output tokens).
  • Grok 4.7 has no overall score yet, so it is not plotted.

Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.

See Gemini 4 Argon on the full price vs performance chart

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Reasoning profile

Gemini 4 Argon

Reasoning

Grok 4.7

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

License

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 4 Argon

2026-09-30

Grok 4.7

2026-09-21

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.2.
Context tradeoff
Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok 4.7?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok 4.7?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon and $0.005 on Grok 4.7; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok 4.7?

Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 500K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows

Agentic

  • AutomationBench

    Gemini 4 Argon51.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 4 Argon65.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Gemini 4 Argon57.40%
    Source
    Grok 4.738.00%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Gemini 4 Argon39.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 4 Argon69.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon68.0%
    Grok 4.768.0%

    Tie

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)

    Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Gemini 4 Argon12%
    Source
    Grok 4.71%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • OSWorld 2.1 Offline

    Gemini 4 Argon74.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Gemini 4 Argon39.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • RoboDojo Sim

    Gemini 4 Argon34.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon65.0%
    Grok 4.754.7%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 4 Argon57.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.773.4%
    Source

    Grok 4.7 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 4.1

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.738.80%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.739.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.774.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • ScarfBench

    Gemini 4 Argon75.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Gemini 4 Argon77.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.771.0%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon55.0%
    Grok 4.729.5%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 4 Argon91.90%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrainBench v1.1

    Gemini 4 Argon45.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon40.7 fixes
    Grok 4.729.0 fixes

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon26.3%
    Grok 4.728.6%

    Grok 4.7 leads this result

  • CursorBench 4.0

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon52.9%
    Grok 4.746.3%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • PostTrainBench

    Gemini 4 Argon40.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.764.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench Frontier v4

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.793.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • STEMBench

    Gemini 4 Argon2.44
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Graphwalks BFS 128K

    Gemini 4 Argon99.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M

    Gemini 4 Argon84.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Gemini 4 Argon98.50%
    Source
    Grok 4.789.50%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 4 Argon91.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.761.4%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Gemini 4 Argon46.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.71.8%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter

    Gemini 4 Argon97.30%
    Source
    Grok 4.77.02%
    Source

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

Multimodal

  • ParseBench-2

    Gemini 4 Argon84.20%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExtractBench Pro

    Gemini 4 Argon30%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Gemini 4 Argon71.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Gemini 4 Argon91.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Gemini 4 Argon54.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • LABBench2

    Gemini 4 Argon88.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Morphology-to-molecule matching

    Gemini 4 Argon25.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Gemini 4 Argon—
    Grok 4.756.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)

    Gemini 4 Argon0.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon85.965%
    Grok 4.752.982%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Gemini 4 Argon78.049%
    Grok 4.717.073%

    Gemini 4 Argon leads this result

45 public results · 16 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok 4.7

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 13, 2026