Grok 4.5 was released around one or two weeks ago. I only started using it seriously after returning to Cursor. I already had a SuperGrok subscription, so I decided to give it a proper shot.

My main takeaway is simple: it is an extremely capable model.

I use it heavily in my development workflow. I recently moved from the Codex app to Cmux, a terminal-based development environment that gives me the opportunity to use Cursor Agent CLI with models such as Grok.

That combination works remarkably well.

Fast Mode Is the Point

Grok 4.5 feels better than Composer 2.5 and is genuinely competitive with the latest frontier models. What stands out is that I can run it in Fast mode and get responses that are both extremely quick and surprisingly thorough.

There is very little nonsense, overthinking, or sugarcoating. If I give it a plan or an ideal architecture, the response is direct: this is good architecture, and these are the parts you need to watch.

That honesty is exactly what I want from a model. It should not praise every decision. It should explain what is strong and identify what needs improvement.

I have been building a lot with it. I can start three or four Grok agents and let them work in parallel without spending the entire session steering each one back towards the goal.

Speed Changes the Workflow

The newer GPT-5.6 models are world class, but they can feel slow compared with Grok. My workflow depends heavily on speed.

That was also the key advantage of Composer 2.5. It was not always the smartest model available, but it moved quickly. By the time a slower model has finished planning and implemented half the work, a faster agent may have finished the first version, shown me the result, and completed another iteration.

That extra loop matters. I can review the interface, spot mistakes, and send the agent back in while the context is still fresh.

Benchmarks rarely capture that. A model does not only need to be correct. It needs to fit the pace at which you make decisions.

Cursor Is in an Interesting Position

The Cursor acquisition feels like a strong move. Cursor has always existed in an awkward market. Anthropic and OpenAI can subsidise subscriptions to attract users, while Cursor has to pay for the models it offers.

Before Composer, the question was what Cursor could do to stop people leaving for first-party tools. I have used Composer 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5, and I have loved watching them improve. They are fast, useful models, and the fact that they build on strong open-source foundations is a real advantage.

I think Cursor's next opportunity is opening the interface to more external agents. The UI is gorgeous. If people could bring Codex, OpenCode, and other tools into it, the choice would become obvious.

Grok Build open-sourced its terminal UI. That gives people a reason to enter the ecosystem, learn the interface, and eventually consider SuperGrok. Cursor could apply the same philosophy. Someone might arrive with another agent, run out of credits, notice that Cursor's own model is already available, and decide to try it.

That may look like giving something away, but it brings more people into the product.

The Verdict

Grok 4.5 is quick, direct, honest, and capable enough to compete with the strongest coding models I use.

Its biggest advantage is not a single benchmark result. It is how much work I can review and improve in the same amount of time.

For my workflow, that makes it one of the most useful models available right now.