Model comparison
Command R vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.0 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.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- 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 52.2 to 13.3.
- 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.
Side by side
| Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1458 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1374 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43)
| 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 Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30)
| 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 | — | 152.01 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54)
| 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 Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1440 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 35.9 (#240), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1450 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1442 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 58.3 (#256), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 36.3 (#226), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1436 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Command R: 38.4 (#248), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42)
| Benchmark | Command R | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.0 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: 41.8 versus 28.8 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.