Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Llama 2-13B
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-13B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 12.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 90.1% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 42.2% for Llama 2-13B.
- Llama 2-13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 30K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 46 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1062 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Llama 2-13B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1051 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 42.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | 106.17 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 58.2% |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 80.7% |
| LAMBADA | — | 76.5% |
| PIQA | — | 80.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 72.8% |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1065 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 36.9% |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1030 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 60.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.4% |
| MMLU | — | 55.6% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 57% |
| TriviaQA | — | 79.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Llama 2-13B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 55.8% |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1024 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1001 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1044 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1009 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 894 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 953 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1055 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1087 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1045 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1064 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1047 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1050 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Llama 2-13B?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Llama 2-13B better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Llama 2-13B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-13B has 32.