# DeepSeek-R1 vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent

> Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-r1-vs-grok-4-20-multi-agent
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 42.4 to 18.7.
- DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.50 / $2.15 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 45.5 |
| Rank | 110 | 62 |
| Context | 164K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.50 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $2.15 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-R1: 45.9 (#63)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#91)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1458 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek-R1: 30.4 (#68)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-R1: 18.7 (#253)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1415 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.3 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-R1: 42.0 (#70)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1401 | 1441 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-R1: 44.3 (#81)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1445 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |

## Multimodal

- DeepSeek-R1: —
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1259 |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-R1: 52.6 (#80)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1443 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1415 | 1467 |
| LMArena German | 1405 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1394 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1359 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1410 | 1447 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-R1: 72.2 (#138)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1430 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-R1: 61.5 (#84)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1451 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2.15 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

### Is DeepSeek-R1 or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?

DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.9 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.