Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 40.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 75% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
ProviderGooglexAI
Noometry Index37.048.6
Released2025-06-172026-02-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K30K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$2.50
Results tracked3346

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
WeirdML35.2%52.3%
LMArena Coding13731459
ALE-Bench325.91,150
LMArena WebDev—1375

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Terminal-Bench—57.3%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard36.9%—
τ²-bench Banking—18%
LMArena Search—1189
Vending-Bench 2—4,663

Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%75%
LMArena Hard Prompts13771451
DTBench62.8%90.1%
LMCA18.1%38.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index133.94151.98
ARC-AGI-2—65.1%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.4%
ARC-AGI-1—89.5%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Thematic Generalization—63.8%
ForecastBench—61.4

Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Math13731455
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—44.9%
FrontierMath Tier 4—17.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—92.2%
ProofBench—14%
Omni-MATH48%—

Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Expert13731439
GPQA Diamond—89.3%
SimpleQA Verified—30.2%
MMLU-Pro53.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.3%—
GPQA (HELM)30.9%—

Multimodal Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Vision11981263
VPCT30%—
Blueprint-Bench 2—0%
LMArena Document—1416

Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Non-English13691441
LMArena Chinese14041481
LMArena French13881476
LMArena German13891465
LMArena Japanese13591449
LMArena Korean13601417
LMArena Russian13731458
LMArena Spanish13961443

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Instruction Following13671420
IFEval81%—

Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Longer Query13731437
Fiction.LiveBench47.2%—
CL-bench—22.2%
CL-bench Life—11.9%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Text13791451
LMArena Creative Writing13671438
LMArena Multi-Turn13661456
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1574
WildBench81.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.

Related comparisons

Go deeper