Grok Code Fast 1 xAI
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.003000
Output: $0.003000
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 100,000 input tokens and 2,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.020000
- Output Cost: $0.003000
- Total Cost: $0.009500
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000093
- Tokens per dollar: 10,736,842 tokens
- Context Window: 256000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 700 tokens per second and 110ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 2 minutes, 28.81 seconds
- Latency: 110 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 700 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 686 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Grok Code Fast 1. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to Grok Code Fast 1| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs Grok Code Fast 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000963 Best Value | ↓ 89.9% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.002781 | ↓ 70.7% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google
|
$0.003688 | ↓ 61.2% cheaper |
| #4 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.003688 | ↓ 61.2% cheaper |
| #5 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.004813 | ↓ 49.3% cheaper |
| #6 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Google
|
$0.007969 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 16.1% cheaper |
| #7 |
GPT-5.4 mini
OpenAI
|
$0.008344 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 12.2% cheaper |
| #8 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.010125 | ↑ 6.6% more |
| #9 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.010625 | ↑ 11.8% more |
| #10 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.011125 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 17.1% more |
| #11 |
GPT-5.6 Luna
OpenAI
|
$0.011125 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 17.1% more |
| #12 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.011138 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 17.2% more |
| #13 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
|
$0.015938 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 67.8% more |
| #14 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.016688 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 75.7% more |
| #15 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.021219 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 123.4% more |
| #16 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.021219 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 123.4% more |
| #17 |
Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
|
$0.021250 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 123.7% more |
| #18 |
GPT-5.6 Terra
OpenAI
|
$0.027813 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 192.8% more |
| #19 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.030313 | ↑ 219.1% more |
| #20 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.031875 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 235.5% more |
| #21 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.036500 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 284.2% more |
| #22 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.036500 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 284.2% more |
| #23 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
|
$0.044500 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 368.4% more |
| #24 |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 459.2% more |
| #25 |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 459.2% more |
| #26 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 459.2% more |
| #27 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 459.2% more |
| #28 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.055625 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 485.5% more |
| #29 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.055625 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 485.5% more |
| #30 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.055625 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 485.5% more |
| #31 |
GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI
|
$0.055625 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 485.5% more |
| #32 |
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.092188 (rounded ~ $0.09) | ↑ 870.4% more |
| #33 |
Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.092188 (rounded ~ $0.09) | ↑ 870.4% more |
| #34 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.101250 (rounded ~ $0.10) | ↑ 965.8% more |
| #35 |
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
|
$0.106250 (rounded ~ $0.11) | ↑ 1018.4% more |
| #36 |
Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic
|
$0.106250 (rounded ~ $0.11) | ↑ 1018.4% more |
| #37 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.111250 (rounded ~ $0.11) | ↑ 1071.1% more |
| #38 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.202500 (rounded ~ $0.20) | ↑ 2031.6% more |
| #39 |
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
|
$0.212500 (rounded ~ $0.21) | ↑ 2136.8% more |
| #40 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.254625 (rounded ~ $0.25) | ↑ 2580.3% more |
| #41 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.254625 (rounded ~ $0.25) | ↑ 2580.3% more |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.8 Flash Google
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
GPT-5.6 Luna OpenAI
o4-mini OpenAI
Gemini 3.6 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.6 Terra OpenAI
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic
Grok 4.3 xAI
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI
Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
Optimizing Code Review Pipelines
For engineering teams handling high volumes of pull requests, the primary bottleneck is often the latency of the feedback loop. Grok Code Fast 1 is specifically engineered for this inner dev loop, prioritizing speed and responsiveness over deep, multi-step chain-of-thought processing. When you need to summarize 100K tokens of diffs and provide instant feedback, this model offers a streamlined alternative to heavier reasoning models.
Its architecture excels at tasks where efficiency is paramount. By focusing on rapid turnarounds, it helps maintain developer momentum, reducing the friction often associated with waiting for asynchronous code analysis. This makes it an ideal candidate for automated PR review bots that need to run continuously across large codebases without incurring the overhead of slower, more complex models.
While it may not match the deep architectural reasoning required for complex production migrations or high-stakes refactoring, it performs admirably for routine code review, style enforcement, and test generation. The key for recruiters and engineering managers is to pair this model with workloads that benefit from high throughput and lower cost, ensuring that your automated review agents remain both responsive and sustainable as your team scales. It is best deployed as part of an agentic workflow where you need broad coverage rather than intensive, singular analytical depth.