Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 45.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.8 to 39.7.
- Both cost about the same: $1.25 input and $2.50 output per million tokens.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 45.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 30K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#91)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1458 | 1458 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1374 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | 1189 | 1204 |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | 89.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.01 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1441 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1445 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1259 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1477 | 1467 |
| LMArena German | 1463 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1450 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1457 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1420 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | 1430 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1451 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 45.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (41.8 vs 42.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.