Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Meta / Together's Llama 4 Vivas and xAI's Grok 4.6 Mini.
| Metric | Llama 4 Vivas | Grok 4.6 Mini | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | Meta / Together | xAI | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $0.25 | $0.40 | Llama 4 Vivas (38% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.06 | $0.10 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Output / 1M | $0.85 | $1.60 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Context Window | 1M | 512k | Llama 4 Vivas (1M) |
| Max Generation Tokens | 128k | 64k | Llama 4 Vivas |
| Tokenizer Family | Meta Llama 3 Tokenizer (128k vocabulary) | OpenAI o200k_base legacy (200k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Llama 4 Vivas when your engineering requirements prioritize Meta / Together's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated Llama 3 Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $0.25/M input rate.
Opt for Grok 4.6 Mini when looking for xAI's tooling integration, specific context window depth (512k tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $1.6/M rate.