Grok

In the repliesIn reply 2, the author says comparison runs used the same prompt, fresh sessions and rolled-back source code. On October 22, reply 17 says they submitted a refund request and again saw overload errors during short translation requests. That is a refund request, not confirmation of payment back.

One user’s incident across different clients and routes. Reasoning settings and full task logs are missing; the post does not establish a provider-wide outage or prove that the model changed after its preview.

Original October 21 at 02:38 UTC; numbered author replies 2 and 17 read October 23. Other replies give mostly unmatched negative impressions, not a controlled reproduction.

In the repliesCommunity responses centered on pricing structures and interface behavior. Only4uArt outlined a hypothetical split in spending between Cursor and Claude, without providing observed cost savings. User slelham reported an unverified interface experience where Grok Bot selected Claude Sonnet and indicated the model was included without requiring a configured budget. In response to truecakesnake, DeCiel stated that standalone Cursor subscriptions remain available only to existing subscribers.

Under the [official pricing rules](https://docs.x.ai/x-subscription/pricing), third-party models remain available in Cursor on Premium and higher tiers but use additional credits from the first request. Existing plans continue unless users choose to switch. The Sonnet UI report does not establish how that account was billed; its model version and completed migration status are unknown.

Original posted October 13 at 02:14:47 UTC. Official pricing documentation updated October 11; Grok Bot documentation and announcement dated October 12. Individual UI and cost reports were not independently reproduced.

In the replieslocbuilds suggested reducing Cursor’s compaction threshold. Dynamix86 replied that both setups retain subagent context and planned a run without subagents; no result was reported. only1nameleft described similar Grok Build and Cursor usage after their own plan switch and suggested checking MCP startup context.

Legacy Cursor Ultra versus Grok Superheavy; task details, matched token logs and billing receipts are unavailable. Proposed explanations remain unverified. Current unified-plan terms cannot establish the earlier plans’ quota equivalence.

Original post and comments pfhyvgn, pfidsae and pgg6omc checked October 14. Reported meter percentages are not a verified model-efficiency or billing multiplier.

In the replieslgnorant-lu reported 2/5 using Gemini Web 3.8 Flash extended with rephrased spatial questions, questioning which blue and white books the bookshelf prompt meant. The author conceded that question was problematic. The changed prompts make this a different attempt.

Single attempts with different settings, clients and providers; these user-assigned grades do not establish a model ranking or reproduce the HSS paper.

LINUX DO posts 23449203, 23450507 and 23450965, October 9. Model labels, grades and client behavior are self-reported.

In the repliesCommunity responses presented contrasting development experiences rather than a controlled benchmark. User wangminle reported fast, direct debugging using Grok 4.5 in Cursor relative to GLM 5.2 in Claude Code. However, clp084013 observed that while generation was fast, a subsequent GPT review surfaced numerous bugs following broad code modifications. User bopomofo cautioned that initial enthusiasm frequently surrounds newly released models.

Grok 4.5 · Grok Build CLI and Cursor; different tasks and clients.

Historical discussion; added to the archive on September 8, 2026. Selected replies, not a community-wide verdict.