Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.8 to 19.5.
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 30K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 46 | 16 |
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), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1210 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1208 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1208 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 41.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 28.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1160 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1192 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1187 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1186 |
| IFEval | — | 78% |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1194 |
| 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), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1218 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1199 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1221 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.