Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 27.3 points higher (46.4 vs 19.1) but costs 9.1× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $545; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 19.1, and LongCat 2.0 when 19.1 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 19.1 | −58.8% LongCat 2.0 is 58.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $544.74 | −89.0% LongCat 2.0 is 89.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.31s | 35.54s | −11.8% LongCat 2.0 is 11.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Grok 4.7 (Xhigh): 58.8% less intelligence, 89.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 11.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)LongCat 2.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill