I just wanted to do a deeper dive in how we underestimated Grok 4.7. I wanted to take a task-by-task look of the cost results given the interest in this piece. I wanted to focus on the most common effort for work, medium. I also am including the full suite of Composer 2.5, Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6, and 4.7. from my Cursor family set. I ran the Grok 4.5 and 4.6 full suites a few weeks ago but hadn't had a chance to do a full post. Note that with all models, caching can be inconsistent cost wise, especially during rollouts. One first realization is the clear improvement from Grok 4.5 to 4.6. For many tasks, you also see a clear improvement to Grok 4.7. At the task level, performance, in 7 of the 23 Grok 4.7 outright tied Astra and 13 out of 23 Grok 4.7 tied/beat Opus 5.5. However, for about 1/3 of the cases Grok was inconsistent in costing significantly more and not in trend with each other or other families. Opus and Sol have their own quirks, but we do see less consistency with Grok. This likely explains why there are many strong views of Grok as depending on your tasks, Grok 4.6 and 4.7 can be either on par with frontier or significantly less efficient. Overall, Sol 6.1 is still the cost-efficient leader. However, for the upper end of challenging but common problems, Grok is a decent choice. What will be really interesting is to see the routine tests. I also want to say that Composer 2.5 continues to get its honorable mention for outperformance. A big thank you to @morganlinton and @VulcanBench for developing their tool and running so many benchmarks.