Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.7
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.7 in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 62.8% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 96% for Grok 4.7.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 53.1 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 500K |
| Max output | 66K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1427 |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.6% |
| CursorBench | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1639 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 29.5% |
| SciCode | — | 57.8% |
| WeirdML | 35.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 54.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 22.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 10,537 |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1413 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 96% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 49.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 153.53 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 76.8% |
| CritPt | — | 18% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 38% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 29% |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 53% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 98.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 34% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1422 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 56% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | 1228 |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 32.5% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20.8% |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1389 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1455 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1397 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1400 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1404 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1413 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1399 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1391 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 2007 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than Grok 4.7?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.7?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.7 better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 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 500K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.7 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 39.