Google Gemini vs. xAI Grok-4: Full Report and Comparison on Features, Capabilities, Pricing, and more (August 2025 Updated)

Graziano Stefanelli
Aug 9
22 min read

Model Versions & Overview

Google Gemini: Google DeepMind’s flagship AI model family Gemini launched in late 2023, with variants Ultra, Pro, Flash, and Nano. By mid-2025, the latest release is Gemini 2.5. The top-tier model is Gemini 2.5 Pro, introduced in June 2025 as Google’s most advanced model for complex reasoning and coding. In August 2025 Google rolled out Gemini 2.5 “Deep Think”, a special multi-agent reasoning version accessible to Ultra-tier subscribers. (The “Flash” series are faster-response models for general use, with Gemini 2.5 Flash as the default model for speed.) Gemini is inherently multimodal and powers Google’s Bard (now the “Gemini” app) and many Google products.

xAI Grok-4: Grok 4 is the latest large language model from Elon Musk’s company xAI, released in July 2025. It succeeds earlier Grok versions (1 through 3) and is explicitly designed to compete with models like GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude. Grok 4 comes in two variants: the standard Grok 4 (single-agent LLM) and Grok 4 Heavy, a multi-agent “ensemble” mode for more complex parallel reasoning. xAI touts Grok 4 as “the most intelligent model in the world,” integrating real-time web search and tool use natively. Grok 4 became available to users via X (Twitter) for premium subscribers and via the xAI API (with special tiers for the Heavy version).

Technical Specifications

To compare Gemini and Grok-4, the table below highlights key technical specs of their latest versions:

Feature	Google Gemini 2.5 (Pro/Deep Think)	xAI Grok 4 (Standard/Heavy)
Architecture	Transformer-based LLM with “thinking” optimization (i.e. chain-of-thought style reasoning built in). Uses native multimodal encoders and a very large context window for long inputs. Notably, Deep Think mode implements a multi-agent approach (spawning parallel reasoning agents) for complex problems. Google has not publicly disclosed the parameter count, but Gemini Ultra is rumored to be on the order of a trillion parameters (successor to PaLM 2).	Hybrid modular architecture with specialized sub-models for code, language, math, etc., coordinated within one system. Grok 4 is massive – about 1.7 trillion parameters – trained with unprecedented compute (200k GPU cluster) and extensive reinforcement learning to refine reasoning. The Grok 4 Heavy variant implements a multi-agent collaborative reasoning framework (several AI “agents” working in parallel).
Training & Data	Trained on broad data (web text, code, documents, images, etc.), building on Google’s prior LLMs (LaMDA, PaLM 2). Gemini 2.5 introduced a new “thinking” training paradigm: the model was fine-tuned with techniques to reason through problems step-by-step before answering. This yields improved logic and coding skills. Gemini models are multimodal from the ground up, leveraging Google’s vast text and image datasets and reinforcement learning for better tool use and reasoning.	Trained on a highly curated and expanded dataset with emphasis on STEM, coding, and factual grounding. xAI scaled up reinforcement learning enormously for Grok 4, allowing it to “think longer” and solve problems with greater accuracy. The training data for Grok included large swaths of math and code (as with Grok 3) plus many new domains, and it incorporates real-time data from X (Twitter) for up-to-date knowledge. Grok 4’s training objective explicitly included learning to use tools (search, code execution) within its answers.
Context Window	1,000,000 tokens (1 million) maximum input length in Gemini 2.5 Pro. This enormous context window (the largest in the industry) allows feeding in books, lengthy documents or codebases in one go. (Google plans to extend it to 2 million tokens in future.) Such a vast memory is ideal for long documents and conversations, though it incurs high computational cost. In practice, Google’s Gemini app and Workspace integrations also use intelligent retrieval to handle long context efficiently.	256,000 tokens via API, and ~128k in the web app interface – significantly larger than most models but smaller than Gemini’s. Grok 4 can ingest hundreds of pages of text or entire code repositories at once. It has demonstrated strong long-context reasoning, winning an abstract reasoning benchmark (ARC-AGI) that requires sustaining logic over many steps. xAI notes that extremely large contexts should be used judiciously (to avoid dilution of relevant info), and suggests pairing Grok with retrieval techniques for best results.
Modality Support	Multimodal input/output: Gemini 2.5 accepts text, code, images, audio, and video as inputs natively. (For example, it can analyze an image or transcribe audio within a prompt.) Outputs are primarily text, but Gemini can produce images or videos via connected generation tools (e.g. Veo 3 for video on the Ultra plan). This breadth makes Gemini extremely versatile in tasks like describing images, summarizing videos, or transcribing and answering questions about audio. It was “built to be multimodal” from the start.	Multimodal to a lesser extent: Grok 4 can handle text and images as inputs and can respond with text (and even generate images or memes in some contexts). It also features an integrated voice assistant (a British-accented persona called “Eve”), allowing text-to-speech output for spoken answers. However, Grok’s multimodality is not as deep as Gemini’s – for example, it does not yet accept direct audio or video inputs for analysis. Its vision understanding, while present, “still trails behind dedicated models like Gemini” in sophistication.
Tool Use & Integration	Native tool integrations are a core feature of Gemini. It can automatically invoke external tools when needed – for instance, executing code or running a Google Search query mid-response. Gemini 2.5’s “Deep Think” mode goes further by spawning multiple tool-using agents that explore ideas in parallel and then synthesize the best answer. Out-of-the-box, Gemini has access to Google’s ecosystem (e.g. search the web, use Maps, etc.) when answering queries. Developers can also use function calling to have Gemini invoke custom tools/APIs. This enables complex workflows: Google demonstrated Gemini building a web app by writing and executing code from a single prompt.	Tool-augmented reasoning is a defining strength of Grok 4. It was trained via RL to use tools like a code interpreter and a web browser autonomously. Grok can decide on its own to issue search queries (via X search or web search) and dig through results for real-time information. It can browse the web, and even view media content linked in queries to inform its answers. This makes Grok especially effective at answering up-to-the-minute questions and solving problems that require external knowledge. The Grok 4 Heavy variant takes this to the next level: multiple agent-instances can cooperatively analyze a problem, each potentially using tools, yielding industry-leading results on complex tasks. Grok’s API is OpenAI-compatible, supporting function calls and even parallel tool calls for advanced integrations.

Performance Benchmarks

Both Gemini 2.5 and Grok 4 are state-of-the-art models, topping many benchmark leaderboards as of 2025. However, their performance profiles differ slightly: Grok 4 leads on the most challenging reasoning tasks, while Gemini excels in multimodal and broad knowledge tasks. Key benchmark comparisons include:

Benchmark results on reasoning and coding tasks: Google reports Gemini 2.5 Deep Think scored 34.8% on “Humanity’s Last Exam” (HLE, a broad reasoning test) vs. 25.4% for Grok 4 (no tools), and 87.6% vs. 79% on a coding challenge (LiveCodeBench).

General Knowledge (MMLU): On the Massive Multitask Language Understanding test (57 academic subjects), both are virtually tied at the top. Grok 4 scores ~86.6%, and Gemini 2.5 Pro ~86.2%, essentially matching each other (and just a hair below OpenAI’s GPT-4o at 88.7%). In other words, both models demonstrate excellent broad knowledge across domains (humanities, sciences, etc.) – a huge improvement over earlier models. Neither has a decisive edge in general MMLU accuracy.
STEM and Reasoning: Grok 4 (especially in its “Heavy” mode) has a clear advantage on the most difficult math and logic benchmarks. For example, xAI reported Grok 4 Heavy achieved a 100% score on the AIME 2025 math competition (a very advanced math exam), whereas Gemini 2.5 Pro scored ~**86.7%**. On “Humanity’s Last Exam” (HLE) – a PhD-level reasoning test spanning math, science, logic, and ethics – Grok 4 Heavy scored 44.4% with tool use, significantly beating Gemini 2.5 Pro (≈26–27%). Even without any tools, Grok 4 answered ~26.9% of HLE questions vs ~21.6% for Gemini 2.5. Another test of abstract reasoning, ARC-AGI (Abstraction and Reasoning Challenge), highlights this gap: Grok 4 solved about 15.9% of the tasks (best among AI models), whereas Gemini managed only 4.9%. These results indicate Grok’s deep chain-of-thought and tool-using training gives it an edge in highly complex, multi-step problems that require “higher IQ” reasoning. Gemini 2.5 is not far behind on many reasoning benchmarks (it also scores top-tier on graduate-level science questions, e.g. ~84% on the GPQA physics exam), but xAI’s focus on rigorous reasoning paid off with Grok 4 becoming “unmatched in this category”.
Coding and Software Tasks: Both models are strong, but Grok 4 currently has the lead for large-scale software development assistance. In benchmark terms, the specialized Grok 4 Code model scores about 72–75% on SWE-Bench, a suite of real-world coding challenges (resolving GitHub issues). Gemini 2.5 Pro isn’t far behind – it scores 63.8% on SWE-Bench (Verified) in Google’s tests, and actually slightly outscored Grok on some coding evals like code editing (74% on Aider benchmark). But in practice, Grok 4 is praised for its deeper code reasoning: it integrates with developer tools (e.g. the Cursor IDE) to navigate multi-file projects, perform debugging, and even refactor code using its large context. Early assessments find Grok better at handling very large codebases and algorithmic problems, thanks to its reasoning ability and huge context. Gemini 2.5 is extremely capable for coding as well – it excels at generating front-end app code from prompts and making precise code edits – but its problem-solving depth on complex, ambiguous coding tasks is slightly behind Grok or Anthropic’s Claude in 2025. Notably, on the standard HumanEval coding test (writing correct solutions to programming challenges), both would be near the top; OpenAI’s latest GPT-4o leads with 90%+, so we can infer Gemini and Grok are in the high 80s% on HumanEval (no exact figure published for Grok/Gemini, but both outperform older GPT-4). Overall, developers find Grok 4 more “agentic” in coding – it can autonomously use tools to run or test code – whereas Gemini is extremely capable within Google’s ecosystem and for coding tasks where the requirements are clearly defined.
Multimodal & Creativity Benchmarks: Gemini’s native multimodal design gives it an advantage in tasks that involve images, audio, or mixed media. For instance, Gemini 2.5 can understand diagrams or screenshots and incorporate them in reasoning – a scenario where it “does especially well”. It supports video analysis (e.g. summarizing a video clip) and long audio transcription out of the box, which are capabilities competitors are only beginning to match. Grok 4, by contrast, is still primarily text-centric in evaluations – it can describe an input image or generate a witty caption, but it isn’t as thoroughly trained on audio/video understanding. On creative writing tasks and open-ended storytelling, neither Gemini nor Grok tops the charts (Anthropic’s Claude is considered best for creative, “human-like” writing). Between the two, Grok 4 produces more lively and stylistic writing – it has a penchant for humor, bold and sharp phrasing, and can adapt tone fairly well. Gemini’s writing is usually correct and polished but tends to be factual and formal in tone. This means for tasks like story generation, marketing copy or empathetic dialogue, users find Grok’s outputs more engaging than Gemini’s. Gemini often shines in informative writing (reports, summaries, technical explanations) where its precision is an asset.

In summary: Grok 4 currently holds the crown in advanced reasoning, math, and coding depth, frequently outperforming Gemini 2.5 on the hardest academic benchmarks. Gemini 2.5, on the other hand, is extremely strong across the board – essentially matching Grok in general knowledge – and it leads in areas like multimodal understanding and sheer context handling. For most real-world tasks in 2025, both are top-tier performers, with only minor differences: e.g. one might choose Grok for a complex research problem or coding an intricate algorithm, versus choosing Gemini for analyzing a long legal document with tables, images, and text.

Use-Case Comparison by Domain

To illustrate how each model performs in practical domains:

Coding & Software Development: Both Gemini and Grok are being used as AI pair programmers, but Grok 4 has an edge for heavy-duty programming. Its ability to integrate into development workflows (like the Cursor IDE plugin) and to handle very large codebases with its 256k context makes it ideal for complex projects. Grok is described as “an AI co-pilot” that can autonomously navigate files, debug, and even make decisions during coding sessions. Gemini 2.5 Pro, in contrast, is tightly integrated with Google’s developer tools (e.g. Cloud and Android Studio) and is excellent for more structured coding tasks – generating code from specs, doing code review, and small-scale bug fixes. It scored ~63.8% on a rigorous coding benchmark, indicating strong ability, and developers note its convenience especially if you’re already in Google’s ecosystem. However, for complex algorithm design or multi-file reasoning, Grok’s stronger step-by-step reasoning gives it an upper hand. In short: Grok 4 is preferred for large-scale and backend development, whereas Gemini is great for rapid prototyping, front-end code, and integration with Google Cloud services.
Writing, Summarization & Creative Work: If the goal is business reports, technical documentation, or summarizing large texts, Gemini 2.5 Pro is extremely effective. Its huge context window allows it to summarize or analyze entire books or lengthy contracts in one go. It tends to produce well-structured, precise, and non-fluffy writing – perfect for, say, summarizing a research paper or writing a detailed project report. Grok 4 can also summarize and write at a high level, but its style is a bit more flair and it may inject humor or personality unless instructed otherwise. For creative writing, neither model is the absolute best (Claude 4 is often noted as most human-like in narrative style). Between Gemini and Grok: Grok 4 is better at injecting witty or bold tone, making it suitable for imaginative storytelling or informal content where a bit of character is welcome. Users often describe Gemini’s narrative style as more dry or “technical” – it sticks to the facts and logical flow, which is great for accuracy but can feel less engaging for fiction or marketing copy. Therefore, for a task like drafting a persuasive blog post or a story, Grok might yield a more lively draft, while Gemini would produce a well-organized but somewhat plain version. For summarization, both do well; Gemini’s advantage is that you can feed enormous texts (e.g. hundreds of pages) and trust it to pull out key points thanks to that 1M token memory. Grok’s 256k context is also large, but if you truly have a massive document, Gemini can handle more in one shot.
Search & Up-to-Date Information: Both models can access current information, but through different channels. Gemini has built-in integration with Google’s search engine – it can perform live Google searches when you ask a question about current events or facts. In Google’s Bard (Gemini) interface, there’s a “Google It” ability that the AI uses to fetch recent info. This makes Gemini very good at things like real-time fact-checking, news summarization, or answering questions about very recent events. Grok 4 has an arguably even more direct pipeline to real-time data: it is connected to X (Twitter) and can pull in the latest posts and trends from the platform. Musk’s xAI enabled Grok to have a “firehose” of Twitter data, giving it up-to-the-second awareness of breaking news and public sentiment. In practical terms, if you asked each model about a trending topic that very minute, Grok might have an edge because of its Twitter integration, whereas Gemini would rely on Google’s indexing speed. Fello AI’s testing found Grok 4 is the top model for real-time knowledge (first place for up-to-date awareness), with Gemini 2.5 Pro a close second (it can use live search effectively). Both outperform other models like GPT-4 in this regard, since they were designed for integrated search. For example, a journalist could use Grok 4 to monitor breaking news on social media, and use Gemini to gather background facts via Google – in combination they cover both social buzz and authoritative info. One distinction: Gemini’s answers will often include direct citations or URLs (given its search grounding feature), whereas Grok, pulling from X, might report on what it finds without always providing a source link (though it can quote posts). For enterprise use, Gemini’s tightly integrated and cited search results can be valuable for verifiability, while Grok’s real-time agility is unmatched for immediacy (e.g. instant analysis of live events or trends).
Reasoning & Problem Solving: When it comes to complex reasoning – whether it’s solving a tough logic puzzle, performing a multi-step scientific analysis, or making a strategic plan – Grok 4 has a notable advantage in 2025. Its design philosophy was “reasoning-first”, and it shows in use. Grok is able to break down problems into sub-tasks and employ tools (like a calculator or Python interpreter) to get to a solution. Users find that Grok is less likely to get stuck on tricky problems and can handle abstract challenges that stump other models. For example, Grok 4 can tackle Olympiad-level math problems by internally running longer “chains of thought” – xAI even allowed it to take hours to reason on a very hard math proof, something essentially unheard of for consumer AI models. Gemini 2.5 also improved reasoning over its predecessor by internalizing a reasoning process (“think-through”). For many common reasoning tasks (like solving a programming puzzle or a moderate math word problem), Gemini does great. But on the absolute hardest tasks, Gemini sometimes “hallucinates” or gives up sooner, whereas Grok (especially Heavy mode) might actually find a creative solution. One illustrative domain is science Q&A: both models can answer complex science questions correctly, but if the question requires synthesizing across disciplines or inventing a novel solution, Grok’s multi-agent Heavy mode yields a more thorough answer (as reflected by its top-tier GPQA science score and HLE performance). In essence, for any task that requires deep reasoning or multi-step planning, Grok 4 is currently the model of choice, while Gemini is extremely competent but a tad more cautious/logical in its approach (and sometimes slightly behind in creative leaps). Notably, Google’s introduction of the Deep Think version of Gemini is explicitly to boost its performance on these kinds of tasks by mimicking the multi-agent approach, which indicates how important this arena is. Early results show Gemini 2.5 Deep Think narrowed the gap (outperforming base Grok on some reasoning benchmarks with its 34.8% HLE score vs Grok’s 25.4% without tools). So this is an evolving area; as of August 2025, Grok 4 Heavy is arguably the single strongest reasoning model, but Gemini is very close behind and improving rapidly with multi-agent techniques.

Integration & Availability

Another angle of comparison is how each model is offered and integrated into products:

Google Gemini Availability: Google has deeply integrated Gemini into its consumer and enterprise services. The Bard chatbot was upgraded to use Gemini (especially for “Bard Advanced” or paid tiers) soon after Gemini’s launch. By 2025, the standalone Gemini App (replacing the Bard name in some places) is available on web and mobile for users to chat with the AI. In Google Workspace, Duet AI features (in Gmail, Docs, Sheets, etc.) are powered by Gemini – for instance, you can ask the AI in Docs to help write or summarize using Gemini’s capabilities. Google Search’s AI mode (SGE) also uses Gemini to answer search queries with contextual results. Additionally, Google offers Gemini through its Vertex AI cloud platform for developers: Gemini 2.5 Pro can be accessed via API in Model Garden (currently in preview as of mid-2025). On the hardware side, devices like the Pixel 8 smartphone integrate on-device Gemini Nano models for AI features (e.g. the Pixel’s AI can summarize web pages or screen calls using a lightweight Gemini model). In summary, if you are in the Google ecosystem, Gemini is everywhere – from Gmail’s “Help me write” button to the Chrome browser’s side panel assistant.
Access Tiers: Basic access to Bard/Gemini (with a scaled-down model or limited usage) is free to consumers, but the full power models require subscription. Google One introduced Google AI Pro ($30/month) and Google AI Ultra ($250/month) plans that grant usage of Gemini 2.5 Pro and Deep Think. For example, a Pro subscriber can use Gemini 2.5 Pro unlimited in the app and get enhanced features like “Deep Research” mode, while Ultra subscribers get exclusive access to Gemini 2.5 Deep Think (the multi-agent reasoning mode). Enterprises and developers can also negotiate usage-based pricing via Google Cloud’s Vertex AI (pay-per-request, similar to how one pays for API calls to models like PaLM). Google has indicated that pricing for Gemini API usage would be competitive, and a free trial or free tier credits are often available for Vertex AI. In short, Gemini is accessible to end-users via Google’s apps (with freemium model) and to developers via cloud API (pay-as-you-go).
xAI Grok-4 Availability: Grok was initially offered uniquely through X (Twitter). Elon Musk gave early access of Grok (beta versions) to X’s premium users in late 2023, and with Grok 4’s launch xAI continued that approach. X Premium+ subscribers (the $16/month plan on Twitter) gained the ability to chat with Grok 4 within the X app. This means in the Twitter interface (or X app), a user can enter a chat with Grok (much like using ChatGPT) – Musk has described it as having an AI that can answer questions with a bit of wit and use internet content. Beyond that, xAI launched a dedicated console (web interface) for Grok as well at console.x.ai, where users with appropriate subscriptions can use a more advanced chat UI (with settings for tools, etc.). For developers and businesses, xAI provides the Grok API – interestingly built to be OpenAI-compatible to ease integration. Developers can call Grok 4 via API through xAI’s endpoints or even through third-party proxy platforms like OpenRouter. xAI’s documentation highlights that the API supports function calling and other advanced features to integrate Grok into software workflows.
Access Tiers: xAI has a tiered subscription model. The base “SuperGrok” subscription at about $30/month grants API access to Grok 4 (standard) and full chat access beyond the basic X Premium+ limits. For the most powerful version, Grok 4 Heavy, xAI introduced a SuperGrok Heavy tier at $300/month. This pricey plan unlocks the multi-agent Heavy mode, which is likely targeted at enterprises or AI enthusiasts needing maximum performance. Casual users on X can sample Grok with their Premium subscription, but that usage might be limited or not the full model (earlier versions had rate limits). As of Aug 2025, there’s no free public version of Grok outside of Twitter’s limited trials – it’s behind a paywall, unlike OpenAI which has some free ChatGPT or Google’s free Bard. Essentially, to use Grok 4 you must pay (either via X Premium/Premium+ or via xAI’s own plans). This reflects xAI’s positioning of Grok as a premium service. For companies, xAI is willing to partner (and possibly offer self-hosting options in the future), but details are scant; one notable aspect is xAI’s claim of easy deployment – since Grok’s API is plug-compatible with OpenAI’s, businesses can swap it in relatively easily if they subscribe.
Ecosystem Integration: Google’s advantage is its sprawling ecosystem – Gemini is natively integrated with Google Workspace (Docs/Sheets/Slides), Gmail, Search, Android, and more. For example, you can have Gemini summarize your emails in Gmail or help write formulae in Sheets. There’s also Gemini in Chrome, an assistant that can read and explain web pages for you. Google is also rolling out plugins/tools for Gemini (though not as a public “store” like OpenAI’s plugins, rather internal integrations like Maps, YouTube, etc., and the function calling for developers). On the other hand, xAI is a newer player with fewer product tie-ins – its main integration point is Twitter (X) itself. That makes Grok a very natural assistant for consuming Twitter content (it can analyze tweets or summarize threads if prompted, for instance). xAI doesn’t have office suite products of its own, but one could integrate Grok via API into other tools manually. We might see future integration with Tesla or SpaceX data (given Musk’s ecosystem), but as of Aug 2025 no such public integration exists (xAI has denied any live Tesla/SpaceX connectivity). One interesting third-party integration is that some community projects (like certain Discord bots or browser extensions) have started to incorporate support for Grok 4 as an alternative to ChatGPT, thanks to the API. Still, in terms of breadth of native integration, Google’s Gemini is far more ubiquitous – leveraged across Google’s products reaching billions of users – whereas Grok 4 is more specialized and accessed mainly through X or custom applications.
Enterprise Considerations: Both Google and xAI offer enterprise-friendly access, but with different emphases. Google Cloud provides enterprise-grade compliance, data privacy, and tools (model cards, safety best-practices) for Gemini – large companies can use Vertex AI to fine-tune (currently fine-tuning is not supported on Gemini 2.5 yet) or at least prompt-tune and integrate Gemini into their pipelines with scalability. Pricing at scale is negotiable (likely usage-based discounts). xAI, being new, has fewer reference enterprise deployments. Baytech Consulting notes that Grok 4’s API being OpenAI-compatible is a strategic plus for enterprise adoption (easy swap in). However, some enterprises may be cautious with Grok due to Musk’s stance on minimal filtering – it’s less censored, which can be useful (it might give more direct answers) but also risky for a business setting if the model produces controversial output. Google’s Gemini by contrast goes through Google’s robust AI safety layers (it is descendant of Bard, which was known for being relatively constrained to avoid bad outputs). This difference isn’t a technical spec, but it’s an important practical note: Grok 4 might occasionally produce edgy or non-politically-correct responses (by design), whereas Gemini is more likely to refuse or sanitize certain queries. Organizations that prioritize safety and brand risk might lean toward Google’s offering, while those who want an uncensored model or need the extra reasoning might consider Grok (with careful use policies).

Pricing Summary

Google Gemini: Consumer access ranges from free (basic Bard with possibly lower-tier models) to ~$30/month for Gemini 2.5 Pro access via Google One AI Pro plan. The $30/mo plan includes not just the chatbot but also features like enhanced Workspace AI and limited use of Google’s image/video generators. The high-end AI Ultra plan at $250/month gives Deep Think and the highest usage limits. For API usage on Google Cloud, pricing is usage-based (per 1000 tokens processed). Google has not published the exact prices for Gemini 2.5 as of August 2025, but historically their PaLM API was in the range of fractions of a cent per token; one can expect Gemini to be similar or a bit higher for the Pro model. Google often offers free trials or grants (e.g. university students get Pro free for 1 year). Importantly, using Gemini features in Google’s own apps (like asking Gmail’s “Help me write”) does not currently incur extra cost beyond any subscription you have – it’s bundled. So for an end-user, the cost of using Gemini is either zero (with possibly limited capability) or a flat monthly fee for heavy use – Google isn’t charging per question on the consumer side.

xAI Grok-4: There is no free tier for Grok at the moment. The minimum cost to play with Grok 4 is effectively the cost of X Premium+ ($16/month), which grants access to the chatbot with some limitations. For full unlimited access, xAI’s own SuperGrok subscription at $30/month is the entry point. This $30 plan can be seen as analogous to OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plus or Google’s AI Pro, except it specifically unlocks Grok 4 and presumably higher rate limits. The Heavy model, due to its huge computational expense (multi-agents using more GPU), costs $300/month for access. That Heavy tier is quite expensive and aimed at power users or businesses who absolutely need the best reasoning (perhaps research labs or hedge funds doing complex analysis). Enterprise licensing for Grok might be a separate negotiation (xAI might allow hosting a dedicated instance, etc., but no public info). As for API calls, since xAI uses a subscription model, the $30/mo likely comes with some generous quota of tokens – possibly enough for typical personal use. If one exceeds that (or for large-scale use), xAI might bill additionally or offer higher plans. Compared to OpenAI or Google, xAI’s approach is more subscription-based than pay-per-call. Bottom line: Grok 4 is currently more expensive to access for equivalent usage (e.g. $30/mo for general use, with no free option), whereas Google provides many users with at least some free Gemini access and a lower price point for basic needs. High-end usage of either model (millions of tokens) will incur significant costs – either via Ultra subscription or cloud billing for Gemini, or the Heavy $300 plan for Grok.

Feature Comparison Summary

Finally, comparing some key features side-by-side:

Tool Use & Agents: Gemini can use tools like search and code execution when prompted, and its Deep Think mode spawns multiple reasoning agents to boost accuracy on hard queries. Grok-4 was designed to be tool-using; it will often decide on its own to do a web search or run Python if a question requires. Grok’s multi-agent Heavy mode is conceptually similar to Deep Think – both represent the cutting-edge trend of agentic AI, where the model breaks a task into parts and perhaps even has “debating” agents. As of 2025, both are at the forefront here, but Grok 4 has more proven wins with its tool-use (e.g. solving live tasks, integrating with developer tools). Google is fast-following with Gemini’s agent modes. Both support function calling APIs for custom tool integration.
Multimodal Capabilities: Gemini supports the widest range of modalities – you can give it an image, a PDF, an audio clip, and some text all in one prompt, and it can handle that (e.g. transcribe the audio, interpret the image, and incorporate them into its answer). It even supports video inputs up to ~45 minutes for analysis. Grok-4 currently supports image inputs and text, and has a voice output. It lacks direct audio/video input analysis (you could transcribe audio via another service and feed the text to Grok, but Grok itself won’t process raw audio). For output, neither model can directly output images as part of the chat (though Gemini can interface with Google’s image generation models). Gemini’s multimodal edge is significant for use cases like analyzing a chart image or a recorded meeting. Grok’s multimodal ability, while not as broad, is still notable – it can discuss an image you upload and describe it, for instance.
Memory and Continuity: Both models maintain conversational context and can refer back to earlier in a conversation. With their giant context windows, they can remember an entire long chat. However, users report Gemini is more likely to use its full context to maintain coherence in very long chats (e.g. you can have a multi-hundred-page document discussion, and Gemini will reliably keep track). Grok, while having a large context, may sometimes lose a bit of the thread in extremely long sessions (and the “lost in the middle” effect can occur with any large context model). Both have features like search grounding and retrieval that can re-inject relevant info as needed. Neither model has a true long-term memory beyond the session (unless a user manually provides memory notes). That said, Google is working on features like NotebookLM integration (letting Gemini store and retrieve notes across sessions), and xAI’s forum chatter suggests techniques for “chain-of-thought” persistence, but those are experimental. For now, both models rely on their context window for memory, with Gemini affording 4x the length of Grok’s in tokens, which is a major differentiator for tasks like legal e-discovery or large text analysis.
Plugins & Extensions: OpenAI’s GPT-4 had a plugin ecosystem – neither Gemini nor Grok has a public plugin marketplace as of 2025. Instead, they integrate tools in more controlled ways. Gemini’s “extensions” are basically Google’s own services (maps, etc.) and the function calling API for devs. Grok similarly can call functions via API. If a user wants a plugin-like experience (say, have the AI book a calendar event or query a database), developers can implement that using the function calling interfaces each provides. There isn’t a one-click plugin store. However, given Google and xAI’s trajectories: Google might not need external plugins because it already owns many services it can integrate (and is cautious about third-party access for safety), whereas xAI being smaller might eventually allow more third-party tool integrations to enhance Grok. Currently, it’s likely that advanced users of Grok create custom tools and call them via the API in a bespoke manner, rather than through an official plugin UI.
Unique Features: A few distinguishing features deserve mention. Gemini has some Google-specific powers like integrating with Google Sheets to execute calculations or with Google Maps for location-based queries (thanks to Google’s back-end). It also can produce audio output via text-to-speech in products like the mobile app (so it can “read aloud” answers in a pretty natural voice, especially on Pixel devices). Grok-4 has a notable personality aspect – it was intentionally made to be a bit witty and edgy (Musk wanted it to have a sense of humor and not be “boring”). As a result, interacting with Grok can feel more like chatting with a somewhat snarky, knowledgeable friend, whereas interacting with Gemini feels like a super-smart assistant or professor. This is subjective, but many users have commented on Grok’s “fun” personality and willingness to be blunt or humorous, which sets it apart from the more neutral tone of Gemini. Depending on the use case, this can be a pro or con. Grok’s style might engage users more in a casual setting, while Gemini’s neutrality might be preferred in professional contexts.

Google’s Gemini 2.5 and xAI’s Grok 4 are arguably the two most advanced AI models as of August 2025, each with their own strengths. Gemini offers greater multimodality, a bigger memory, and seamless integration into everyday tools (from Google Docs to Search), making it a powerhouse for productivity, data analysis, and multimodal creative tasks. Grok 4 provides unparalleled reasoning and a bold, tool-using approach, often yielding superior results on the hardest problems in math, coding, and logic. It also brings real-time awareness via X and a dynamic personality that some users love.

In practice, the “better” model depends on the context: For a researcher solving complex scientific problems or a developer debugging code, Grok 4 might deliver more breakthrough help. For a business user summarizing reports or a content creator working with text, images, and audio, Gemini 2.5 Pro offers a more comprehensive and polished toolkit. Both models are continuously improving, and the gap between them in many areas is small – indeed, Google’s latest Gemini Deep Think and xAI’s Grok Heavy show a convergence toward multi-agent reasoning as the frontier.

One thing is clear: the era of a single AI dominating everything is over. Gemini and Grok exemplify how top-tier AI systems can differentiate themselves: Google leaning into scale, modality, and integration, and xAI leaning into raw reasoning power and autonomy. Savvy users and organizations in 2025 often adopt a multi-model strategy – e.g. using Gemini for one set of tasks and Grok for another – to leverage each model’s strengths. Both Gemini 2.5 and Grok 4 are remarkable achievements, pushing the boundaries of what AI can do in their own ways.

____________

DATA STUDIOS

datastudios.org