# Command R vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

> Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-grok-4-20
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 13.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 90.1% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 48.6 |
| Rank | 272 | 54 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Command R: 29.3 (#306)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1459 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1375 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command R: —
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.8 (#331)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 38.7% |
| 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% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.98 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |

## Math

- Command R: 28.0 (#246)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1455 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 31.0 (#221)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1439 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Command R: —
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.7 (#245)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1449 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1443 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.1 (#261)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#231)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.2 (#254)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1438 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Command R or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

### Is Command R or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Command R and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.