xAI shipped Grok 4.7 on September 21, 2026, replacing Grok 4.6 as its most capable model for coding and knowledge work — by the company's own positioning. The upgrade path is explicit: a new, larger base model, a longer reinforcement-learning run weighted toward problems that take many hours, and native training against the Grok Bot harness.

Official scores: where it climbs

Per xAI's comparison table, Grok 4.7 (xHigh) beats Grok 4.6 (High) on all seven listed benchmarks. CursorBench 4.0 rises from 40.4% to 46.3%. DeepSWE v1.1, at the high-effort setting, reaches 71.0% — above Grok 4.6's 65.2% and Fable 5.1 Max's 70.0%, slightly behind GPT-5.6 Sol Max at 72.7%. On EEBench, the electrical-engineering benchmark, it climbs to 64.0%, well ahead of GPT-5.6 Sol (39.4%) and Fable 5.1 (56.4%).

For professional workloads, AA Briefcase v1.1 scores 1657 over Grok 4.6's 1546; GDPval Elo lands at 1695, above Grok 4.6 (1605) and GPT-6 Astra max (1542), still behind Fable 5.1 max at 1735. On the Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark it posts 19.6%, the highest of the four compared models.

The table is not all green: Terminal-Bench 4.0 self-reports 38.0% against Fable 5.1's 57.9%, and HealthBench Professional at 56.7% trails Sol (60.5%) and Fable (62.1%). Long-running terminal work and clinical reasoning remain rivals' territory.

Pricing and safety

Prices are unchanged: $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens, identical to Grok 4.6, with a fast variant at twice the output speed and twice the price. The model is available in Cursor, Grok Build, the Grok API, third-party coding harnesses and cloud platforms — and, per independent reporting, has already rolled out to GitHub Copilot.

Safety gets the most ink in the announcement: xAI calls its new safeguard stack the strongest it has tested on refusals and jailbreak resistance, topping LatchBio's biosafety benchmark at 62.4%, letting only 3.3% of risky dual-use prompts through on HackerBench v0.3 while rarely blocking legitimate security work. Selected cybersecurity partners now have invite-only access to its red-team capabilities.

The third-party gap

Independent retests tell a different story. The Neuron, citing The Decoder's relay of Artificial Analysis results, puts Grok 4.7 at 26% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, versus roughly 60% for GPT-6 Astra and 55% for Fable 5.1 — a twelve-point gap against xAI's own 38%. Score drift between vendor-chosen configurations and independent harnesses is common, but that magnitude is enough to remind readers that a launch-day table is half the story.

So what

Grok 4.7's play is "same price, stronger model": lifting coding and professional-knowledge scores at $2/$6 (Sol runs $4/$20, Fable 5.1 $10/$50) rather than chasing the most expensive tier. For developers, the price-performance line at mid-tier just moved up a notch. For the industry, the thing to watch is whether independent numbers converge with the official table as iterations land: if Artificial Analysis retests drift toward xAI's figures, the gap was configuration; if they keep diverging, discount the chart accordingly. Launch-day noise is cheap; independently updated data two weeks later is the scarce asset.