Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Grok 4.20
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Grok 4.20 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 13 to Grok 4.20.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 33
- Grok 4.20 only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.
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
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 54.68. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 70.6 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.3% to 47.1%.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 6.9x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin← 23.5 | Grok 4.2047.1 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 2.7 | Grok 4.2067.1 |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2053.3 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.20Not measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.20Not measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2070.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 47.1%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 16.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.4%B 76.7%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 2.7SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.4%B 51.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 2.6SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Grok 4.20 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Grok 4.2010.33 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Grok 4.202M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 47.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.36% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | 76.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | 51.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 4.06% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | 88.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| HLESource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 31.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.3% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Grok 4.20?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.3% and 47.1%.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Grok 4.20?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 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 Pro (High) or Grok 4.20?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.