Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 1 category and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 48.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 74% for GPT-5.2 Pro and 44.9% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 52.3 | 48.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2026-02-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $21 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $168 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 46 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1375 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |
Reasoning Too close to call
GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | 65.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.3% | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | 89.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.4 | 151.98 |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1451 |
| DTBench | — | 90.1% |
| LMCA | — | 38.7% |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46% | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 92.2% |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1455 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1439 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 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 Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1420 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1437 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | 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 GPT-5.2 Pro better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.