Agentic harness comparison
Grok Build vs Muse Code
Compared on where each one runs, which editors it supports, how autonomous it is, and how it bills — the four things that actually decide Grok Build vs Muse Code. Rankings reflect fit and trade-offs, not a single universal winner; partner links, when present, do not replace that methodology.
Details last verified October 2, 2026
SpaceXAI
Grok Build
Terminal, headless CI, and ACP · Agentic
Meta
Muse Code
Terminal, CI, and session SDK · Agentic
| Specification | Grok Build | Muse Code |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | ||
| Vendor | SpaceXAI | Meta |
| Runs in | ||
| Runs in | Terminal, headless CI, and ACP | Terminal, CI, and session SDK |
| Editor support | ||
| Editor support | Any (editor-agnostic) | Any (editor-agnostic) |
| Autonomy | ||
| Autonomy | Agentic | Agentic |
| Pricing model | ||
| Pricing model | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Requires changing editor | ||
| Requires changing editor | No | No |
Dates refer to the linked source’s publication or capture unless it explicitly states when the benchmark was measured. Values we could not confirm are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Grok Build
Grok Build is SpaceXAI's terminal coding agent, currently advertised with Grok 4.7. It offers an interactive TUI, headless scripting, ACP integration, custom model endpoints, plan mode and parallel child sessions. Git worktree isolation can be requested; it is not automatic for every subagent. Released binaries support macOS, Linux and Windows.
Best for
- Parallel work with explicit isolation
- Terminal and ACP coding workflows
- Reviewed plans and diffs
Watch out
Grok Build is free to try, without a verified universal usage allowance. Current x.ai pricing lists SuperGrok $30/month and Plus $100 with higher Build usage; API/custom endpoints have separate billing. First-party CLI/runtime code is Apache-2.0, with separate vendored licences. The current changelog lists 1.0.46 dated September 30. Ask is the default permission mode, but the sandbox is off by default. Plan mode gates edit tools except its own plan file; shell writes and full-capability child edits are not blocked by that gate. Enterprise ZDR is team-configured and does not remove local session history. No current independent benchmark score is asserted.
Muse Code
Muse Code is Meta's coding agent for the terminal and CI, with a session protocol and TypeScript SDK. It supports the Muse Spark family; the current overview and configuration docs still name muse-spark-1.2 as the default, separately from available Spark 1.3. macOS, Linux and Windows are documented, with platform-specific feature limits. Parallel workflows depend on the installed build and rollout.
Best for
- Terminal and CI coding tasks
- Piloting enabled multi-agent workflows
- Teams using the Meta Model API
Watch out
October 2 sources list Everyday $5/month, High $15 (5x) and Power $50 (20x); regional benefits can vary. The subscription-linked CLI credential does not cover additional API keys, which bill pay-as-you-go. Standard Spark 1.3/1.2 token rates are $1.25 input / $0.15 cached / $4.25 output per MTok; Contributor rates are $0.10 / $0.002 / $0.20 with training permission and lower team quotas. Meta forbids confidential, sensitive or personal inputs on Discounted Services. Standard no-training is not zero retention. Auto-review and an OS sandbox are the defaults, with safe commands and workspace writes potentially proceeding automatically. Workflows are unavailable in the documented current Apple silicon macOS artifact; Windows lacks voice and session messaging. Changelog 1.4.2 is a client version with no release date recovered.
Common questions
Grok Build vs Muse Code
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Do I have to change editor to use Grok Build or Muse Code?
How are Grok Build and Muse Code priced?
Is Grok Build or Muse Code better for large refactors?
Will my project rules transfer between Grok Build and Muse Code?
Do coding agents replace code review?
Should we harden MCP before rolling out a coding agent?
Next step
Which one fits
Autonomy and editor constraints decide this far more reliably than a benchmark score.
If most of your week is small, frequent edits, an assistive workflow beats delegation and an agentic harness sits idle while billing. If you regularly hand over work spanning many files, the reverse is true.
Where one tool requires changing editor and the other does not, that difference usually outweighs any capability gap across a team — rollouts fail on adoption, not capability.
“Open vendor” links use a first-party redirect for click counting. They are not commissionable partner placements unless a programme is active for that vendor. Affiliate disclosure.