Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 22.3.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 46.2 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1457 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1448 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1442 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1445 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1259 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1475 |
| LMArena French | — | 1466 |
| LMArena German | — | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1447 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1420 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1431 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1452 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.