Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs phi-3-medium 14B
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 3 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.8 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 89.3% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B.
- phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 30K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 46 | 13 |
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), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | 121.23 |
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 27.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | — |
| LMArena French | 1476 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than phi-3-medium 14B?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and phi-3-medium 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.