# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent

> Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 1.8× 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/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-grok-4-20-multi-agent
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 18.1.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 46.2 |
| Rank | 170 | 65 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1457 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1448 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1442 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1445 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | 1259 |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1466 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1447 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1420 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1431 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1436 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1452 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 1.8× 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, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.