Model comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.20
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.6 Flash unranked (Not scored); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.6 Flash and Grok 4.20 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Gemini 3.6 Flash; 18 to Grok 4.20.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 19
- Grok 4.20 only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.6 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Grok 4.20 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 2M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Grok 4.20 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.20 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | Grok 4.20 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | Grok 4.2010.33 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | Grok 4.202M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1421 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 38.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 46.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 961 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 24.5% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 47.1% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.36% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| deepSweSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 52.7% | — | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 23.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 50.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | — | 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 |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 83.2% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Grok 4.20?
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Grok 4.20 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Grok 4.20?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 47.1. Grok 4.20 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.