Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 89.3% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 48.6 |
| 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 | 14 | 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 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1375 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | 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 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 151.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1451 |
| DTBench | — | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 38.7% |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | 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% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1455 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1439 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | 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 Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1420 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1437 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1456 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.