Grok 4.7
xAI · proprietary · writing benchmark
The short version
Grok 4.7 sits at #27 of 167 on ToneBench, in the middle of the pack, with a writing Elo of 2186 and an overall score of 87.9 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 10 of our real YouTube scripts, five times each, then scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions. Here is how it shook out.
Within xAI it ranks 2nd of 13. Grok 4.7 (high) is the family's top writer here, about 0 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.
Among proprietary models, it comes in 24th of 114. That ranking is against the stronger half of the board: closed models still set the pace on voice fidelity here.
What it does best is Tone & Voice: it ranks 3rd on that dimension at 90.1, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Length Discipline (71.4, 92nd), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.
It was uneven across the 10 scripts. Its best run was the news-analysis / skeptical explainer (89.7) and its weakest was the engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation (82.9), a spread of about 7 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.
On cost, it runs about $0.267/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less money, at $0.007/task, so on pure value this config is not the frontier.
If you're tuning reasoning effort, we also tested Grok 4.7 at other settings. The strongest of those on the board is Grok 4.7 (high) (Elo 2186), so it is worth checking whether more or less thinking moves the needle before you lock in this one.
Skill profile
The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: YouTube Structure (+12.2); smallest edge: Length Discipline (+0.6).
Per-metric scores
Nine writing dimensions, each scored 0–100 and blended by the editorial weight shown. Rank is against all 167 current-ranked models. The thick bar is this model; the thin lines above and below are the current field's best model (darker) and average (lighter) on the same scale. The small ± number is its run-to-run variation.
Per-article scores
The same 10 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.
Consistency: run-to-run variability
Every cell on this page is the mean of 5 independent runs per script; the ± numbers are the run-to-run standard deviation. Overall, Grok 4.7 varies by ± 2.7 points between runs versus a board median of ± 2.7, so it is about as repeatable as the typical model on the board.
Its most volatile dimension is Length Discipline (± 17.2 vs a board median of ± 8.6): two runs of the same brief can land visibly different length discipline scores. Its steadiest is Tone & Voice (± 0.8 vs ± 1.7 board median), which you can rely on run after run.
| Metric | This model | Board median | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tone & Voice ? | 90.1 ± 0.8 | ± 1.7 | steadier than most |
| Writing Craft ? | 89.0 ± 1.2 | ± 1.5 | typical |
| Substance & Value ? | 89.0 ± 1.2 | ± 2.0 | steadier than most |
| Flow & Emotion ? | 88.2 ± 1.2 | ± 1.8 | typical |
| YouTube Structure ? | 89.0 ± 1.6 | ± 2.9 | steadier than most |
| Hook ? | 89.2 ± 1.6 | ± 2.0 | typical |
| Length Discipline ? | 71.4 ± 17.2 | ± 8.6 | swingier than most |
| Anti-Slop ? | 93.2 ± 1.3 | ± 2.1 | typical |
| Visual Cues ? | 88.5 ± 2.7 | ± 3.2 | typical |
Measured, not modeled
Numbers we log on every run and rarely talk about. None of these affect the writing scores; cost and latency are informational.
What each judge scored it
The published overall of 87.9 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 50 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 5.5 points on its overall. A typical amount of judge disagreement for this board. How the panel works: methodology.
How we ran Grok 4.7
- Accessed viaxAI API · model page ↗
- Exact model / route id
grok-4.7(provider default reasoning) - Generations5 independent runs × 10 scripts = 50 drafts, stored immutably after generation
- Run dates2026-09-25
- Judges3-judge panel: Claude Opus 5, high effort (Anthropic) + DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (OpenRouter) + GPT-5.6 Sol, medium reasoning (Codex CLI): every draft scored independently by all three with the identical rubric, blind to model identity, evidence quotes required before each metric score; published score = per-metric consensus mean, verified with a Bradley-Terry refit (methodology)
- Samplingprovider-default sampling, no fine-tuning, no system-prompt changes; every current-ranked model gets the identical brief, style contract and research packet
- What stays privatethe exact rubric and any non-public reference material; source-publication timing is disclosed for exceptions (why)
Frequently asked questions
How good is Grok 4.7 at writing?
On ToneBench it ranks #27 of 167 with a writing Elo of 2186 and an overall score of 87.9/100. That score comes from writing our 10 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.
Is Grok 4.7 the best xAI model for writing?
Not quite. Within xAI it ranks 2nd of 13; Grok 4.7 (high) is the family's best writer here.
Is Grok 4.7 good value for the money?
It costs about $0.267/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.
What are Grok 4.7's strengths and weaknesses?
Its strongest dimension is Tone & Voice (3rd on the board, 90.1). Its weakest is Length Discipline (92nd on the board, 71.4). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.
Does Grok 4.7 write some formats better than others?
Yes. Its best of our 10 scripts was the news-analysis / skeptical explainer (89.7) and its weakest was the engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation (82.9).
How consistent is Grok 4.7 between runs?
We run every script 5 times. Grok 4.7's overall score varies by about ±2.7 points between runs, versus a board median of ±2.7. That is typical consistency for this board. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.
How was Grok 4.7 evaluated?
Via xAI API using the exact model/route id grok-4.7, run on 2026-09-25. 5 runs per script, provider-default sampling, no fine-tuning; every draft scored blind with a fixed rubric by a three-family judge panel. Full details in the 'How we ran it' section and the methodology.
Is Grok 4.7 open source?
No, it is a proprietary (closed-weights) model. Among proprietary models it ranks 24th of 114 for writing.