Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.2 to 21.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and 90.1% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.4 (#181), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1458 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1374 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 47.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | 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
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 21.2 (#203), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1324 | 1451 |
| DTBench | 52.5% | 90.1% |
| ForecastBench | 57.1 | 61.4 |
| 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 | 50.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LMCA | — | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 152.01 |
| LiveBench | 54.3% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.8 (#192), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1309 | 1455 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| Omni-MATH | 37.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 58.1% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.6 (#185), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1305 | 1440 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| MMLU-Pro | 72% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 30.6 (#103), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1100 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.2 (#156), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1323 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1339 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1346 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1306 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1302 | 1450 |
| LMArena Korean | 1325 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1328 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1313 | 1442 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.6 (#158), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 78.3% | — |
| IFEval | 82.4% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#155), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1321 | 1436 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.9 (#172), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1330 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1307 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
| WildBench | 79% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.