vs
Groq vs xAI
xAI sells closed Grok models with live X data and up to 1M context. Groq serves a few open models very fast. Different model access, different jobs.
By The Subconscious Team · Updated
Groq vs xAI: key differences
xAI is a lab and Groq is a chip host, so the first question is which models you need. xAI sells Grok 4.6 at $2 in and $6 out with a 500K window, and Grok 4.20 and 4.3 at $1.25 in and $2.50 out with 1M. Its X Search tool pulls live posts from X natively. Groq serves open weights like GPT-OSS 120B and Qwen 3.6 27B on its LPU, capped around 131K context. A team that needs Grok, fresh social data or long context cannot use Groq instead. A team that needs open models at 500 to 1,000 tokens per second will not find that speed at xAI.
Long prompts widen the gap. xAI bills a whole request at double once the prompt passes 200K tokens, but at least it accepts prompts that size. Groq's ceiling stops well below that. On short prompts, Groq's small-model prices sit near the floor and its tail latency stays tight, which suits voice. xAI offers separate image, video and audio APIs, while Groq's only non-text modality is speech to text.
What Groq and xAI do
Groq
Groq serves open models on its own chip, the LPU, which keeps model weights in on-chip SRAM and runs a deterministic schedule instead of waiting on GPU memory. Groq publishes 1,000 tokens per second on GPT-OSS 20B and 500 on GPT-OSS 120B. Latency stays tight between median and tail, which matters for strict SLAs. The API is OpenAI-compatible and also hosts Whisper for speech to text plus an agentic system called Groq Compound with built-in search and code execution.
Example models: GPT-OSS 120B, Qwen 3.6 27B
Full Groq profilexAI
xAI sells the Grok models through its own API. Grok 4.6 is the current flagship and xAI tells developers to use it for everything outside audio, image and video, code included. It has a 500K context window and costs $2 in and $6 out per million tokens under 200K prompt tokens. Older Grok 4.20 and 4.3 models keep a 1M window at $1.25 in and $2.50 out, which is aggressive for that capability class.
Example models: Grok 4.6, Grok 4.20
Full xAI profileShould you choose Groq or xAI?
Groq vs xAI at a glance
| Attribute | Groq | xAI |
|---|---|---|
| Model access | Open weights | Closed |
| Flagship models | GPT-OSS 120B, Qwen 3.6 27B | Grok 4.6, Grok 4.20, grok-build |
| Speed | 500–1,000 tok/s | ~54 tok/s on Grok 4.6 |
| Price | Near the floor on small models | $2 in, $6 out (Grok 4.6); 2x past 200K |
| Customization | No fine-tuned model hosting | Unknown |
| Deployment | GroqCloud API | First-party API |
| Long context | Around 131K max | 500K (4.6), 1M (4.20, 4.3) |
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Groq and xAI?
xAI sells closed Grok models with live X data and up to 1M context. Groq serves a few open models very fast. Different model access, different jobs.
When should I choose Groq over xAI?
Sub-second open-model replies for voice apps; Cheap high-frequency calls on small models; Strict tail-latency targets.
When should I choose xAI over Groq?
Agents that need live X posts and news; Prompts beyond Groq's roughly 131K ceiling; Closed-model reasoning with cheap output tokens.
Is Groq or xAI cheaper?
Groq: Near the floor on small models. xAI: $2 in, $6 out (Grok 4.6); 2x past 200K. The cheaper choice depends on the model and workload.
Which has more context, Groq or xAI?
Groq: Around 131K max. xAI: 500K (4.6), 1M (4.20, 4.3).
Related comparisons
Running long-horizon agents?
If your agents run past 200K tokens, compare both against Subconscious. Our inference stack treats a long-horizon trace as the primary workload, so speed, cost, and accuracy hold up deep into the trace.