LLM Reference

Grok 4.2 vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B

Grok 4.2 (2026) and Llama 4 Maverick 17B (2025) are compact production models from xAI and AI at Meta. Grok 4.2 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Llama 4 Maverick 17B ships a 128k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.

Grok 4.2 is safer overall; choose Llama 4 Maverick 17B when coding workflow support matters.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalGrok 4.2Llama 4 Maverick 17B
Decision fitGeneralCoding, RAG, and Agents
Context window128k
Cheapest output-$0.97/1M tokens
Provider routes0 tracked1 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 rows0 rows

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Grok 4.2 when...
  • Use Grok 4.2 when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
Choose Llama 4 Maverick 17B when...
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B uniquely exposes Multimodal, Structured outputs, and Code execution in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Llama 4 Maverick 17B for Coding, RAG, and Agents.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.

Grok 4.2

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Llama 4 Maverick 17B

$435

Cheapest tracked route: AWS Bedrock

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

Grok 4.2 -> Llama 4 Maverick 17B
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Grok 4.2 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B adds Multimodal, Structured outputs, and Code execution in local capability data.
Llama 4 Maverick 17B -> Grok 4.2
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 4 Maverick 17B and Grok 4.2; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Multimodal, Structured outputs, and Code execution before moving production traffic.

Specs

Specification
Released2026-05-162025-10-01
Context window128k
Parameters17
Architecture--
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
Knowledge cutoff2024-112024-08

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeGrok 4.2Llama 4 Maverick 17B
Input price-$0.24/1M tokens
Output price-$0.97/1M tokens
Providers-

Capabilities

CapabilityGrok 4.2Llama 4 Maverick 17B
VisionNoNo
MultimodalNoYes
ReasoningNoNo
Function callingNoNo
Tool useNoNo
Structured outputsNoYes
Code executionNoYes

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on multimodal input: Llama 4 Maverick 17B, structured outputs: Llama 4 Maverick 17B, and code execution: Llama 4 Maverick 17B. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.

Pricing coverage is uneven: Grok 4.2 has no token price sourced yet and Llama 4 Maverick 17B has $0.24/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose Grok 4.2 when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Llama 4 Maverick 17B when coding workflow support and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency.

FAQ

Is Grok 4.2 or Llama 4 Maverick 17B open source?

Grok 4.2 is listed under Proprietary. Llama 4 Maverick 17B is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.

Which is better for multimodal input, Grok 4.2 or Llama 4 Maverick 17B?

Llama 4 Maverick 17B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for structured outputs, Grok 4.2 or Llama 4 Maverick 17B?

Llama 4 Maverick 17B has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for code execution, Grok 4.2 or Llama 4 Maverick 17B?

Llama 4 Maverick 17B has the clearer documented code execution signal in this comparison. If code execution is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Where can I run Grok 4.2 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B?

Grok 4.2 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Llama 4 Maverick 17B is available on AWS Bedrock. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

When should I pick Grok 4.2 over Llama 4 Maverick 17B?

Grok 4.2 is safer overall; choose Llama 4 Maverick 17B when coding workflow support matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Grok 4.2; if it depends on coding workflow support, run the same evaluation with Llama 4 Maverick 17B.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.