I agree, from my experience Grok gives superior coding results, especially when modifying large sections of the codebase at once such as in refactoring.
Although it’s not for coding, I have noticed Gemini 2.5 pro Deep Research has surpassed Grok’s DeepSearch in thoroughness and research quality however.
Yes, Grok has become my go to model for general research and targeted coding tasks. Feels like its getting better over time vs ChatGPT which seemed to deteriorate over time.
Claude 3.7 is excellent, and better at coding but I appreciate the context size of Grok and feel like I get better bang for my buck for general purpose research too.
I don’t know if I’m doing something wrong, but Gemini 2.5 pro was substantially worse coding quality than Grok. Which is surprising since I’m working on a Golang codebase which I had assumed Gemini would excel at given that it’s made by Google
The trick I’ve been using is to copy the entire codebase into a text prompt with Repo Prompt and feed that into Grok with a specific request on what feature / change I want.
Then paste that output into Cursor with Claude 3.7 and have it make the actual code changes and ask it to build/fix errors along the way with yolo mode enabled.
The 2-step process is a lot better since Grok can refer to the entire context of your codebase in one shot and come up with a high quality implementation plan, which is then handed off to Cursor to autonomously make the code changes.
Although it’s not for coding, I have noticed Gemini 2.5 pro Deep Research has surpassed Grok’s DeepSearch in thoroughness and research quality however.