Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Grok 4.5
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 41 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 41 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 2 categories and Grok 4.5 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.5 leads 60.9 to 48.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is τ²-bench Banking: 18% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 47.9% for Grok 4.5.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 55.0 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-07-08 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 500K |
| Max output | 30K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | 1553 |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | 46.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1474 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 1,309 |
| DeepSWE | — | 53.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 42.4% |
| SciCode | — | 54.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | 47.9% |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | 1213 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | 3,887 |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 56.2% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 23.4% |
| GBAEval | — | 65.4% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | 52.6% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | 83.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | 79.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | 87.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | 36% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1462 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 96.5% |
| LMCA | 38.7% | 45.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | 153.92 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70% |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 74.4% |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | 57.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | 24.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 97.8% |
| ProofBench | 14% | 31% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1459 |
Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 93.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | 48.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1466 |
Multimodal Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1288 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | 27.3% |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | 1452 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 22.5% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1496 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1456 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1446 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1428 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1404 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1448 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1450 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1446 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1463 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1448 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1442 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | 1579 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Grok 4.5 better for coding?
Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Grok 4.5 share?
41 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.5 has 52.