Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs Grok 4.20

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.95/100
Margin
0.7pts
winning →
54.68/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Grok 4.20 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 13 to Grok 4.20.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
5
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
33
Grok 4.20 only
13
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.20 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 54.68 versus 53.95. 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 $0.14 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).

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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Grok 4.20
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)ΔGrok 4.20
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3Margin← 8.2Grok 4.2047.1
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5Margin← 1.4Grok 4.2067.1
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2053.3
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9MarginNo overlapGrok 4.20Not measured
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGrok 4.2070.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)B · Grok 4.20

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 56.6%B 47.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 9.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%; Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 78.6%B 76.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 1.9
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 78.6%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.3%B 51.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 0.5
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 52.3%; Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGrok 4.20233 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGrok 4.2010.33 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1MGrok 4.202MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%47.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
BrowseCompSource 53.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 40.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 67.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 28.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 32.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1147—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —62.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —38.36%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
CodeforcesSource 2816.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78.6%76.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.3%51.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
SWE MultilingualSource 70.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 52.0%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —74.2%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —4.06%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
MRCR 1MSource 76.9%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 59.3%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 62.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 3.4%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —53.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
MMLU-ProSource 86.4%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 28.9%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 73.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource 87.4%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.4%88.5%Grok 4.20 leads
HLESource 29.4%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.5%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.7%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 27.8%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.3%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 35.5%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 89.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —31.6%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.3%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —50.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 91.9%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 85.1%—Not comparable
ApexSource 19.1%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12381257Grok 4.20 leads
MMMU-ProSource —75.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource —60.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —54.1%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —57.4%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —65.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Grok 4.20Result
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.68 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.6% and 47.1%.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Grok 4.20?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Grok 4.20?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.3 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.