Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok Build 0.1
Updated November 13, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
Gemini 4 Argon: $2 input / $10 output
Grok Build 0.1: $1 input / $2 output
- Context window
Gemini 4 Argon: 1M
Grok Build 0.1: 256K
- Released
Gemini 4 Argon: September 30, 2026
Grok Build 0.1: May 20, 2026
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 4 Argon only
- 39
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Gemini 4 ArgonHow the comparison works
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 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
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
71.8Gemini 4 Argon26.8Grok Build 0.1
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Gemini 4 Argon has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
39 Gemini 4 Argon only
1 Grok Build 0.1 only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 4 Argon
- 74.9
- Supported · #6/135
- Grok Build 0.1
- 33.9
- Estimated · #95/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 13 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 4 Argon
- 71.8
- Supported · #9/162
- Grok Build 0.1
- 26.8
- Estimated · #121/162
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Directional only- Gemini 4 Argon
- 76.5
- Supported · #7/160
- Grok Build 0.1
- 37.6
- Estimated · #99/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Argon
- 79.2
- Supported · #8/180
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 4 Argon
- 87.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 4 Argon | Grok Build 0.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 74.9Supported · #6/135 | 33.9Estimated · #95/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 13 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 71.8Supported · #9/162 | 26.8Estimated · #121/162 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.5Supported · #7/160 | 37.6Estimated · #99/160 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 79.2Supported · #8/180 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 87.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 4 Argon
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.002
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.056
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 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 4 Argon
- $0.16
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.08
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Your workload
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $40.00
- per month
- Grok Build 0.1
- $14.00
- per month
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Price against score, among all priced models
Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.
Gemini 4 Argon
- 2 models at the same price score higher than Gemini 4 Argon. The nearest is Gemini 4 Carbon (score 89.2, also $10.00 per 1M output tokens).
- Grok Build 0.1 has no overall score yet, so it is not plotted.
Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.
See Gemini 4 Argon on the full price vs performance chartSpecification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 4 ArgonGrok Build 0.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 4 Argon
Grok Build 0.1
256K
API model ID
Gemini 4 Argon
gemini-4-argon
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGrok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGrok Build 0.1
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 4 Argon
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGrok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 4 Argon
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 4 Argon
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini 4 Argon model documentationGrok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
Grok Build 0.1
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
License
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 4 Argon
2026-09-30
Grok Build 0.1
2026-05-20
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.08.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok Build 0.1?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for coding on the public lane, 71.8 to 26.8. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 74.9 to 33.9. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok Build 0.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon and $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.08. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 4 Argon or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 4 Argon has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence40 rows
Agentic
AutomationBench
Gemini 4 Argon51.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 4 Argon65.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Gemini 4 Argon57.40%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 4 Argon69.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Gemini 4 Argon68.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Gemini 4 Argon12%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Gemini 4 Argon74.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
RoboDojo Sim
Gemini 4 Argon34.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
CWE-bench
Gemini 4 Argon65.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 4 Argon57.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 4 Argon—Grok Build 0.149.15%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
ScarfBench
Gemini 4 Argon75.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 4 Argon77.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 4 Argon55.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 4 Argon91.90%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Gemini 4 Argon45.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Gemini 4 Argon40.7 fixesSourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Gemini 4 Argon26.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Gemini 4 Argon52.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench
Gemini 4 Argon40.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
STEMBench
Gemini 4 Argon2.44SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128K
Gemini 4 Argon99.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Gemini 4 Argon84.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Gemini 4 Argon98.50%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 4 Argon91.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Gemini 4 Argon46.3%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3 Provider Adapter
Gemini 4 Argon97.30%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
ParseBench-2
Gemini 4 Argon84.20%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
ExtractBench Pro
Gemini 4 Argon30%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Gemini 4 Argon71.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 4 Argon91.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 4 Argon54.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Gemini 4 Argon0.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Math
40 public results · 0 shared
Watch Gemini 4 Argon vs Grok Build 0.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 13, 2026