// head_to_head

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 vs SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 and SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 are priced within ~10% of each other.

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

kwaipilot

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5

Blended / 1M
$1.29
Context
262K
Released
Jul 10, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool callingprompt caching

x-ai

SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1

Blended / 1M
$1.25
Context
256K
Released
May 20, 2026
Overall score
67.8
reasoningtool callingimage inputfile inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricKAT-Coder-Pro V2.5SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

67.8
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0144
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$1.29$1.25
Input price / 1M$0.740win$1.00
Output price / 1M$2.96$2.00win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.150win$0.200
Context window262K256K
Max output tokens236K230K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 on top, SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
45.8
Coding
65.4
Reasoning
76.4
Mathematics
78.4
Data analysis
70.8
Language
72.5
Instruction following
65.2

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadKAT-Coder-Pro V2.5SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$371.92/mo$342.40/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$533.60/mo$600.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$498.40/mo$512.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$932.50/mo$1,110/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,851/mo$2,300/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 vs SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 FAQ

Which is better, KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 or SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1?

KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 and SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 are priced within ~10% of each other. KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 cheaper than SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1?

They cost about the same. Both land near $1.29 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 or SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 262K for KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 and 256K for SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1.

Do KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 and SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1 support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.150 per million for KAT-Coder-Pro V2.5 and $0.200 for SpaceXAI: Grok Build 0.1, against full input rates of $0.740 and $1.00. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.