Model comparison
Command R vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 13.8.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 46.2 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1457 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1448 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1442 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1445 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1259 |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1466 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1431 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1452 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Command R or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.