SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 is a reasoning model from SpaceXAI. It accepts text and image inputs with text output, and is suited for agentic workflows, instruction-following tasks, and applications requiring high factual...
Anyone in the Project can @-mention SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 with the team's shared context - pooled credits, one chat, one memory.
Starter is free forever - 1 Project, 100 credits/month, 1 MCP. No card.
Verdict
Best for
- Long-document analysis under budget constraints
- Multimodal tasks combining text and images
- Large codebase exploration and refactoring
- Cost-sensitive research summarization
- File-based workflows with extended context
Strengths
The 1M-token window matches top-tier models while undercutting them on price—$1.25 input versus $3.00 for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Multimodal support (text, image, file) makes it versatile for mixed-media tasks without switching models. The pricing structure favors read-heavy workloads: input tokens cost half what you'd pay for output, so it's efficient for summarization, extraction, and analysis where you feed more than you generate.
Trade-offs
No public benchmarks means you're flying blind on standard evals like MMLU, HumanEval, or GPQA. We can't compare reasoning quality, coding accuracy, or instruction-following against peers. The $2.50/Mtok output rate is higher than some alternatives (GPT-4o at $2.00), so generation-heavy tasks cost more. Without verified performance data, teams risk discovering capability gaps only after integration—test thoroughly on your own tasks before committing.
Specifications
- Provider
- x-ai
- Category
- llm
- Context length
- 1,000,000 tokens
- Max output
- 900,000 tokens
- Modalities
- text, image, file
- License
- proprietary
- Released
- 2026-04-30
Pricing
- Input
- $1.25/Mtok
- Output
- $2.50/Mtok
- Model ID
x-ai/grok-4.3
Per-token prices show what the model costs upstream. On Switchy your team draws from one shared org credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Team cost calculator
5 seats · 80 msgs/day
Switchy meters this against your org's shared credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Providers
| Provider | Context | Input | Output | P50 latency | Throughput | 30d uptime |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x-ai | 1000k | $1.25/Mtok | $2.50/Mtok | — | — | — |
Performance
Benchmarks
Works well with
Top MCPs
Compatibility data comes from first-party telemetry; once we have enough co-usage signal, top MCPs for this model will appear here.
How Switchy teams use it
Starter prompts
Summarize Legal Contract
Read this contract in full. Summarize: (1) all financial obligations, (2) termination clauses, (3) liability caps, and (4) any unusual or high-risk terms. Flag sections that reference other documents.
Analyze Codebase Architecture
Review this codebase. Describe the overall architecture, identify the main modules and their responsibilities, list external dependencies, and flag any anti-patterns or tight coupling between components.
Compare Research Papers
I've uploaded five papers on [topic]. Compare their methodologies, summarize consensus findings, highlight contradictions, and suggest which study has the strongest evidence base.
Extract Data from Scanned Forms
Extract all line items, totals, vendor details, and dates from these scanned invoices. Output as a CSV with columns: vendor, date, item, quantity, unit_price, total.
Refactor Legacy Code
Refactor this legacy module to use modern Python idioms. Preserve all functionality, add type hints, replace deprecated libraries, and document any breaking changes or migration steps needed.
Example outputs
Illustrative - representative of the model's voice and quality, not literal recordings.
Review this Python function for potential race conditions. It's meant to update a shared cache from multiple worker threads, but we're seeing inconsistent state under load.
The function uses a simple dictionary without any locking mechanism, creating a classic race condition. When multiple threads call `cache[key] = value` simultaneously, Python's GIL provides some protection but not transactional consistency—you can still get torn reads if another thread accesses the cache mid-update. The real issue is the check-then-act pattern in your `get_or_compute` wrapper: Thread A checks the key doesn't exist, Thread B does the same, both compute the expensive value, both write it. Under load, you're doing duplicate work and the last write wins arbitrarily. Replace the dict with `threading.Lock()` around critical sections, or better yet, use `functools.lru_cache` if your use case fits, which handles thread safety internally.
This example shows Grok's ability to diagnose concurrency bugs with specific technical detail—it identifies both the GIL limitation and the check-then-act antipattern. The 1M token context window means you could paste an entire codebase for this kind of review, though response quality at that scale isn't benchmarked here.
I have 47 customer interview transcripts as PDFs. Extract the top 3 pain points mentioned across all interviews, with frequency counts and representative quotes from at least 2 different customers per pain point.
After analyzing all 47 transcripts, the top pain points are: (1) **Onboarding complexity** (mentioned by 34 customers)—"It took our team three weeks just to get the basic workflow running" (Customer #12), "The documentation assumes you already know the system" (Customer #29). (2) **Slow support response times** (mentioned by 28 customers)—"We waited 4 days for a reply on a blocking issue" (Customer #7), "Email support feels like shouting into the void" (Customer #41). (3) **Lack of bulk operations** (mentioned by 19 customers)—"I have to update 200 records one by one" (Customer #15), "No CSV import means manual data entry for hours" (Customer #33). These three issues account for 68% of all complaints raised.
Demonstrates Grok's file-processing and synthesis capabilities across a realistic multi-document workload. The 1M token context means all 47 PDFs could fit in a single prompt. However, without published benchmarks on document understanding or retrieval accuracy, users should verify extracted quotes against source material for high-stakes decisions.
Generate a product launch email for our new API rate-limiting feature. Audience is technical founders at Series A startups. Tone: confident but not salesy. Include a code snippet showing the new syntax.
Subject: You asked for usage controls. Here they are. We've shipped per-endpoint rate limiting. Set limits in your dashboard or via API—no migration required for existing integrations. ```python client.set_rate_limit( endpoint="/api/search", requests_per_minute=100, burst=20 ) ``` Limits apply per API key. When a client hits the threshold, they get a 429 with a `Retry-After` header. You can configure whether to queue excess requests or reject them immediately. This has been our #2 feature request since Q3. If you've been building your own rate-limiting layer, you can retire it now. Full docs: [link] — The Team
Shows Grok's ability to match a specific tone (technical, no fluff) and produce realistic code snippets. The output avoids marketing clichés and reads like internal product communication. At $2.50/Mtok output, this 150-token response costs $0.000375—economical for drafting tasks, though pricier than some competitors for high-volume generation.
Use-case deep-dives
When Grok 4.3 handles full depositions in one pass
A 4-person litigation support team needs to extract key admissions from 800-page deposition transcripts without chunking or summary loss. Grok 4.3's 1M token context window fits the entire transcript plus exhibits in a single prompt, so you can ask cross-reference questions that span the whole record. At $1.25/Mtok input, a full deposition costs roughly $1.00 to process—cheaper than any manual pre-read and faster than chaining smaller models. The trade-off: without public benchmarks, you'll want to spot-check accuracy on known-good depositions before trusting it on high-stakes motions. If your transcripts rarely exceed 200k tokens, Claude 3.5 Sonnet's proven reasoning at similar cost is the safer default.
Grok 4.3 for whole-repo context in architecture rewrites
A 10-engineer SaaS team is migrating a monolith to microservices and needs an AI that can hold the entire dependency graph in memory while suggesting service boundaries. Grok 4.3's 1M token window lets you paste 40+ TypeScript files, the database schema, and API specs in one prompt, then ask it to propose a clean split without losing cross-file references. The $2.50/Mtok output cost means a 200k-token refactor plan runs about $0.50—negligible compared to developer time saved. The risk: no MBPP or HumanEval scores on record, so validate its suggestions with unit tests before merging. If you're refactoring under 100k tokens, GPT-4o's benchmarked code performance is the lower-risk pick.
When Grok 4.3's image+text combo routes complex tickets faster
A 15-person e-commerce support team gets 300 tickets daily, many with screenshots of checkout errors or product damage. Grok 4.3's multimodal input lets agents paste the customer's message, error screenshot, and order history into one prompt, then get a triage recommendation (refund/replace/escalate) in under 3 seconds. At $1.25 input per million tokens, even image-heavy prompts cost fractions of a cent per ticket. The caveat: without published vision benchmarks, you'll need a week of parallel human review to confirm it's not missing edge cases in low-contrast screenshots. If your tickets are text-only or you need sub-second latency, GPT-4o mini at $0.15/Mtok input is the proven budget play.
Frequently asked
Is Grok 4.3 good for general text generation and reasoning?
Grok 4.3 handles general text tasks competently, but without public benchmarks it's hard to quantify where it ranks against GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet. The 1M token context window is useful for long documents. If you need proven performance on coding or math, wait for benchmark data or test competitors with published scores first.
Is Grok 4.3 cheaper than GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet?
No. At $1.25 input and $2.50 output per million tokens, Grok 4.3 costs roughly the same as GPT-4o ($2.50 input, $10 output) for typical workloads with 1:4 input-output ratios. Claude Sonnet 4 is cheaper at $3 input, $15 output. For budget work, use Gemini Flash or Haiku instead.
Can Grok 4.3 handle image and file analysis effectively?
Grok 4.3 supports image and file inputs, so you can upload PDFs or screenshots for analysis. Quality depends on your use case — OCR and chart extraction work reasonably well across most frontier models. Without vision benchmarks published, assume parity with mid-2024 GPT-4 Vision for planning purposes.
How does Grok 4.3 compare to Grok 3 or earlier versions?
SpaceXAI hasn't released detailed comparisons between Grok 4.3 and prior versions. The 1M context window is a clear upgrade if earlier Grok models had smaller limits. For capability jumps in reasoning or coding, you'll need to test directly or wait for third-party evals — the vendor hasn't shared those numbers publicly yet.
Should I use Grok 4.3 for production chatbots or API workflows?
Only if you've tested latency and output quality for your specific prompts. Grok 4.3's pricing is competitive for moderate-scale use, and the large context window helps with RAG pipelines. But without published benchmarks, you're flying blind on accuracy versus Claude or GPT-4o. Run A/B tests before committing production traffic.
Compare with
More language models
- SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 (batch)x-ai
- SpaceXAI: Grok 4.5x-ai
- SpaceXAI: Grok 4.6x-ai
- SpaceXAI: Grok 4.7x-ai
- SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1x-ai
- StepFun: Step 3.5 Flashstepfun
- StepFun: Step 3.7 Flashstepfun
- StepFun: Step 5 Previewstepfun
- Tencent: Hunyuan A13B Instructtencent
- Tencent: Hy3tencent
- Tencent: Hy3 previewtencent
- Tencent: Hy4 previewtencent