Model comparison
Codestral vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Codestral scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 19.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 32.5% for Codestral and 75% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 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 256K.
Side by side
| Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 30.6 | 48.6 |
| Released | 2024-05-29 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Codestral: 27.3 (#321), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 137.78 | 1,150 |
| Aider Polyglot | 11.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1375 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 41.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1459 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 73.8% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Codestral: 19.8 (#251), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 32.5% | 75% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| 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% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.98 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
Math Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1455 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1439 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1420 |
Long Context Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1437 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Codestral: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Codestral better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 3.5× 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, Codestral or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Codestral is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Codestral or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 27.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Codestral and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.