Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 1.8× 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 . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 18.1.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 46.2 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1457 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1442 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1445 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | 1259 |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1466 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1420 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1431 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1452 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 1.8× 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, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.