Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4.1 in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 43.2.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 41.5 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2025-11-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | 1214 |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1445 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 39% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1435 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1417 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Grok 4.1: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1425 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1465 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | 1448 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 1446 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | 1397 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1407 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | 1438 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1400 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1416 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1411 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1437 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Grok 4.1?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok 4.1 better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 4.1 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.1 has 19.