# Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Grok 4.6

> Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-20-vs-grok-4-6
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 37

## Summary

- They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.6 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 48.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 14% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 51% for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 56.9 |
| Rank | 54 | 21 |
| Context | 1M | 500K |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
- Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | 1617 |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 1,508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| SciCode | — | 56.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
- Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | 9,047 |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
- Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | 67.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | 87.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1447 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 38.7% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | 156.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| CritPt | — | 19.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
- Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 14% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1423 |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
- Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1467 |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
- Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | 1452 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
- Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1404 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
- Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1431 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
- Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1454 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
- Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Grok 4.6?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.6?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.6 better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Grok 4.6 share?

37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.