Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Nova 2.0 Pro Preview
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4 leads 36.9 to 21.7.
Side by side
| Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Amazon |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 32.8 |
| Released | 2025-07-09 | 2025-12-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 48 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 49.9 (#44), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.2 (#130)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 79.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.7% |
| WeirdML | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 32.1 (#62), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#127)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 27.2% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 21.1% | — |
| Cybench | 43% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 2% |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.6% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 36.9 (#59), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 16% | — |
| SimpleBench | 60.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 66.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 28% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.9 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4: 46.5 (#58), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 60.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 19.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4: 53.7 (#50), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 72.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4: 33.1 (#89), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1211 | — |
| GeoBench | 45% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4: 52.0 (#98), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena German | 1429 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1419 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4: 79.4 (#4), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 94.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1387 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 94.4% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4: 58.7 (#111), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1397 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.9% | — |
| WildBench | 79.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1416 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4 better than Nova 2.0 Pro Preview?
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4 or Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better for coding?
Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.9 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Nova 2.0 Pro Preview share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3.