LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5 Nano vs Grok 4.7

Updated October 21, 2026. 59 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace GPT-5 Nano Replace Grok 4.7
GPT-5 NanoOpenAI
Coding
34.8
Overall
13.0
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Grok 4.7xAI
Coding
75.0
Overall
46.4
Output $/M
$6.00
59
vs boards won of 59 shared

Decision reading

Pick Grok 4.7 for coding: it scores 75.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 34.8 for GPT-5 Nano.

Pick GPT-5 Nano when output tokens cost 15.0x less.

Model AGPT-5 NanoOpenAI34.8/1001 independent benchmark$0.109 per solved taskModel BGrok 4.7xAI75.0/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
59
GPT-5 Nano only
26
Grok 4.7 only
40
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

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

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-5 Nano 34.8 from 1 benchmark, Grok 4.7 75.0 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 28.8 points apart on average over 11 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
ARC-AGI: GPT-5 Nano 20.7% against Grok 4.7 90.2%, 69.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5 Nano $0.40 against Grok 4.7 $6.00 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5 Nano takes 400K tokens, Grok 4.7 500K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-5 NanoBarsGrok 4.7Ties
Coding02
Intelligence02
Reasoning011
Math06
Knowledge07
Web design06
General025
All shared boards059
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
SWE-bench Verified34.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LiveBench codingNot measured84.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1637Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)70.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured28.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured86.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured57.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured73.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured42.9%Only Grok 4.7 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)78.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
SciCodeNot measured57.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)17.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench21.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
FrontierCodeNot measured47.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
FrontierSWENot measured29.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
WeirdML38.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13511432Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: software and IT13451421Grok 4.7
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1663Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1627Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1586Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index13.046.4Grok 4.7
Epoch Capabilities Index139.2154.4Grok 4.7
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
LiveBench researchNot measured86.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench browserNot measured60.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured50.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured3.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured52.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured34.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured47.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured18.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured10.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured34.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom36.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured54.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$10,537Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
GPQA Diamond63.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured82.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured25.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)70.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)67.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.5%43.1%Grok 4.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)69.4%92.7%Grok 4.7
ARC-AGI20.7%90.2%Grok 4.7
ARC-AGI-22.6%61.4%Grok 4.7
Chess puzzles22.0%41.0%Grok 4.7
Mystery game puzzles9.0%29.0%Grok 4.7
VPCT37.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13281415Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: expert13211439Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13381427Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: diagrams11411254Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: homework11571309Grok 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Math benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
AIME81.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)93.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
AA Math Index83.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)83.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
OTIS Mock AIME81.1%98.1%Grok 4.7
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 320.0%53.0%Grok 4.7
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%17.1%Grok 4.7
ProofBench12.0%26.0%Grok 4.7
MATH level 595.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math13171414Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: mathematical work13261435Grok 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
MMLU Pro76.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)50.1%84.4%Grok 4.7
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)67.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)53.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)30.4%49.5%Grok 4.7
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
SimpleQA Verified11.7%56.0%Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: science13181419Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13351395Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: legal and government12981423Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: business and finance13111389Grok 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
Design Arena: websites11011255Grok 4.7
Design Arena: UI components10661271Grok 4.7
Design Arena: game dev10451314Grok 4.7
Design Arena: data viz10561227Grok 4.7
Design Arena: 3D9661269Grok 4.7
Design Arena: all code categories10841271Grok 4.7
LiveBench designNot measured78.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index025
General benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
Vals IndexNot measured58.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured76.9%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured65.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)30.4%40.8%Grok 4.7
MedScribe (Vals AI)72.9%89.4%Grok 4.7
IFBench67.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)45.0%80.0%Grok 4.7
DTBench62.7%96.0%Grok 4.7
LMCA7.9%49.4%Grok 4.7
Fiction.LiveBench44.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured20.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text13201399Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: instruction following13061406Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: creative writing12491381Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision11591231Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: English13211411Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: non-English13131386Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Chinese13561449Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: German13271366Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Japanese12271359Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Korean12691383Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1431Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish13601406Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Russian12961399Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Polish13141420Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: multi-turn13111394Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: longer queries13121416Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: writing and language12831394Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12681376Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: English11701229Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: Chinese11761250Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: reading text11521241Grok 4.7
LMArena Vision: humor1110Not measuredOnly GPT-5 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1217Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoGrok 4.7Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GPT-5 Nano$0.0003Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.0050Fits in one request

GPT-5 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5 Nano$0.0037Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.118Fits in one request

GPT-5 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5 Nano$0.014Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.460Fits in one request

GPT-5 Nano costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GPT-5 Nano and Grok 4.7
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5 NanoSpaceXAI Grok 4.7
MakerOpenAIxAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 7, 2025September 21, 2026
Context window400K500K
Input $/Mtok$0.05$2.00
Output $/Mtok$0.40$6.00
Coding index34.875.0
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved task$0.109Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5 Nano better than Grok 4.7 for coding?

Pick Grok 4.7 for coding: it scores 75.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 34.8 for GPT-5 Nano. Pick GPT-5 Nano when output tokens cost 15.0x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5 Nano or Grok 4.7?

GPT-5 Nano costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5 Nano only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5 Nano or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7, with 500K tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5 Nano vs Grok 4.7 comparison based on?

59 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5 Nano's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Grok 4.7's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next