xAI plans to replace one of its Grok image models on November 2, 2026, affecting agencies, creators and businesses making or editing images through its API—the service software uses to request images. The September 2 notice says existing requests will keep working, without a compulsory code change.
The practical choice before the switch is which quality tier to pay for. Letting xAI redirect old requests and selecting the replacement yourself can lead to different editing bills.
Which image workflows are affected?
The retiring model is grok-imagine-image-quality. The older grok-imagine-image-pro name, which already redirects to it, follows the same change. From November 2, both names will route generation and editing requests to Image 2.0 at low quality. The migration guide says request and response structures remain compatible; grok-imagine-image version 1.0 is unaffected.
If you use a third-party creative tool, ask its provider which model it uses and whether its own prices or settings will change. These API rates are not a consumer subscription price announcement.
Changing only the model can change the editing bill
Selecting grok-imagine-image-2.0 explicitly lets you choose low, medium or auto quality. Omitting the setting selects auto. The current generation documentation says auto uses low for generation but medium for editing, with billing based on the tier actually served.
That means an editing workflow left on the old name will switch to low, while one moved to Image 2.0 without a quality setting currently uses medium. To choose low for both generation and editing, select Image 2.0 and set quality to low explicitly. Auto leaves that decision to the service; its current defaults are not a permanent guarantee.
What the price difference means
The table compares selected output-image rates in US dollars, checked on October 12, using xAI’s retiring-model price table and Image 2.0 price table. The 1K and 2K rows are image-resolution tiers. Reference-image inputs cost extra.
Output resolution | Retiring model, before switch | Image 2.0: low | Image 2.0: medium |
|---|---|---|---|
1K | $0.05 per image | $0.04 per image | $0.06 per image |
2K | $0.07 per image | $0.06 per image | $0.08 per image |
Illustrative output-only calculation: 10,000 billable 1K images cost $500 at the retiring model’s rate, $400 at Image 2.0 low or $600 at medium. The low-tier saving is 10,000 × ($0.05 − $0.04) = $100. At 100 images, the same difference is only $1.
For editing, xAI’s pricing page lists a separate $0.01 charge per input image for both models. Assume 10,000 edit requests, each with one billable reference image and one 1K output. Adding $100 in input charges gives:
Retiring model: $500 outputs + $100 inputs = $600.
Image 2.0 low: $400 outputs + $100 inputs = $500.
Image 2.0 medium, including current auto editing: $600 outputs + $100 inputs = $700.
In that example, the two replacement choices are $200 apart. The automatic low-tier redirect reduces the image charges by $100; explicitly switching models and leaving editing on auto increases them by $100.
These are rate-card calculations, not measured savings. They hold resolution, billable output and input counts, and retries constant. They exclude taxes, negotiated rates, third-party fees, storage and staff review. More reference images or extra attempts change the totals.
Choose based on images you can use
Low and medium are tier names, not evidence that the replacement is worse or better than the retiring model for your work. The sources establish routing and prices; this guide does not establish comparative visual quality.
Check the actual settings. Record the model, generation versus editing, resolution, quality, output count and reference-image count. A provider’s default may differ from your direct API configuration.
Make the quality choice explicit. If low meets your requirements, accepting the redirect or selecting low yourself fits that decision. If considering medium, compare representative prompts and authorized reference images before committing to its higher rate.
Budget for usable work. Include rejected attempts and review time, not just the first returned image. For the broader distinction between a cheaper model call and a finished deliverable, see RohitAI’s analysis of Asana’s browsing-cost study.
Check billed costs after switching. xAI documents per-request cost reporting in
usage.cost_in_usd_ticks; dividing by 10 billion gives US dollars. Sum those request costs rather than treating this illustration as an invoice.
The retirement notice does not specify the November 2 cutover hour or timezone.
Methodology: AI-assisted reporting and analysis based on xAI’s published documentation, rechecked on October 12, 2026. RohitAI did not generate test images or independently measure output quality. All cost examples are illustrative calculations under the stated assumptions.