Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 63.8
- Grok Code Fast 1
- 70.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Grok Code Fast 1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok Code Fast 1
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 57.16 versus 37.81, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 Gemini 2.5 Pro only
1 Shared
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 6
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 27.4
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 11.6
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok Code Fast 1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 63.8 | 70.8 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 27.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 11.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.8%Grok Code Fast 1: 70.8%Normalized gap 7.0Gemini 2.5 Pro source Grok Code Fast 1 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.00625
- Fits in one request
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.00095
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.0925
- Fits in one request
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.0145
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.059
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 2.5 ProGrok Code Fast 1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Grok Code Fast 1
256K
API model ID
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingGrok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGrok Code Fast 1
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Grok Code Fast 1
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
License
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
Grok Code Fast 1
2025-08-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 2.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 57.16 versus 37.81, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0925 vs $0.0145. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.059.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Gemini 2.5 Pro42.01%SourceGrok Code Fast 1—Not directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok Code Fast 1?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 57.16 versus 37.81, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok Code Fast 1?
Grok Code Fast 1 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok Code Fast 1?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok Code Fast 1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00625 on Gemini 2.5 Pro and $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1; repository review costs $0.0925 and $0.0145; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.059. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Grok Code Fast 1?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok Code Fast 1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.