Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs o1
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 7 categories and o1 in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 27.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 89.5% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 30.7% for o1.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 200K |
| Max output | 30K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 52.3% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1367 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | 15% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 38.7% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | 141.91 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 76.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1361 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
Multimodal Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1345 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
Long Context o1 leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than o1?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or o1?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and o1 share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.