Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs Grok 4.20
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #88 (Supported); Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and Grok 4.20 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 17 to Grok 4.20.
Updated July 28, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 17
- Grok 4.20 only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V3.2 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 54.5 versus 53.88. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 14.3x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V3.2 | Δ | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | Margin→ 6.2 | Grok 4.2067.1 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2047.1 |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2053.3 |
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.20Not measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2070.1 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3.2 | Grok 4.20 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | Grok 4.20 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | Grok 4.2010.33 s | DeepSeek V3.2 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | Grok 4.202M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
CodingGrok 4.20 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 4.06% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 31.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.3% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or Grok 4.20?
DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.5 to 53.88.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or Grok 4.20?
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 60.9. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.