Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
71
Grok 4.20
76
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #19 · Grok 4.20 unranked
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+8.3 difference
Coding
+11.2 difference
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
Grok 4.20
$0.14 / $0.28
$2 / $6
N/A
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
1M
2M
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 71. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). That is roughly 21.4x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High).
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 71. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.6% and 47.1%.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 61. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.4 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.