grok-4-1-fast vs jamba-mini-1.7

Capability for the money

Both are priced within 15% of each other, so capability decides it: grok-4-1-fast leads by 51.1 points on tool use (τ²-bench).

1. Following instructions

   extraction, classification, sticking to a format

   IFBench
   grok-4-1-fast36.5%

   jamba-mini-1.731.4%

   grok-4-1-fast +5.1

2. Coding

   writing and fixing code

   LiveCodeBench
   grok-4-1-fast39.9%

   jamba-mini-1.76.1%

   grok-4-1-fast +33.8

3. Tool use

   multi-step agent work against real tools

   τ²-bench
   grok-4-1-fast63.7%

   jamba-mini-1.712.6%

   grok-4-1-fast +51.1

4. Hard reasoning

   graduate-level science and multi-step analysis

   GPQA Diamond
   grok-4-1-fast63.7%

   jamba-mini-1.732.2%

   grok-4-1-fast +31.5

Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, grok-4-1-fast returns 185.3 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 82.3 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.

Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.