Model comparison
GPT-5.4 nano vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 3.4× 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-5.4 nano scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 42.4 to 23.8.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 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 400K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.9 | 45.5 |
| Released | 2026-03-17 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GPT-5.4 nano: 43.1 (#82), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#91)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1404 | 1458 |
| SciCode | 46.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 49.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,005 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: —, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 23.8 (#159), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1380 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 39.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 51.5% | — |
| CritPt | 9.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 9% | — |
| DTBench | 80.3% | — |
| LMCA | 36.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.78 | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.3 | — |
Math GPT-5.4 nano leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 40.7 (#76), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1406 | 1441 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 12.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 25.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 6.3% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 nano leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.8 (#94), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1397 | 1445 |
| GPQA Diamond | 78.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.1% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 36.0 (#73), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1196 | 1259 |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 48.8 (#136), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1391 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1396 | 1467 |
| LMArena German | 1368 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1342 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1363 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1368 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 72.1 (#139), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1362 | 1420 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#131), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1365 | 1430 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 55.9 (#137), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1372 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1313 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1382 | 1451 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.4 nano better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 3.4× 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-5.4 nano or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is GPT-5.4 nano or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (43.1 vs 42.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 nano and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 nano has 40 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.