Model comparison
GPT-4o mini vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 6.0× 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.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4o mini scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 8.7.
- GPT-4o mini is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 25.5 | 46.2 |
| Released | 2024-07-18 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 16K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 22.0 (#335), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1290 | 1457 |
| Aider Polyglot | 3.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 11.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 83.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 72.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-4o mini: 27.5 (#101), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 17.4% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 8.7 (#347), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1267 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | 10.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 54.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 50% | — |
| LMCA | 10.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.56 | — |
| LiveBench | 41.3% | — |
| PIQA | 88.7% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 10.4 (#314), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1267 | 1442 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 0.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.9% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 28% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 36.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 52.6% | — |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 17.7 (#284), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1445 |
| GPQA Diamond | 37.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 8.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 60.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 37.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 36.8% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.7% | — |
| MMLU | 81.8% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 25.9 (#122), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1066 | 1259 |
| Video-MME | 64.8% | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 42.0 (#199), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1266 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1265 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1297 | 1466 |
| LMArena German | 1272 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1216 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1195 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1275 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1276 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 61.9 (#239), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1258 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | — |
| IFEval | 78.2% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 39.1 (#186), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1289 | 1431 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-4o mini: 39.5 (#248), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1286 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1268 | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1285 | 1452 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 67.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 873 | — |
| WildBench | 79.1% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 28.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-4o mini better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 6.0× 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, GPT-4o mini or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
GPT-4o mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is GPT-4o mini or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 22.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-4o mini and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4o mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.