Model A

Google

46.64/100

Estimated · Public rank #161

90% interval 35.1–58.2

Gemma 4 12B vs Grok Build 0.1

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Grok Build 0.1

xAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

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.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 12B and Grok Build 0.1 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 12B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

12 Gemma 4 12B only

1 Grok Build 0.1 only

Shared results: 0
Gemma 4 12B only: 12
Grok Build 0.1 only: 1
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, 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

Gemma 4 12B: 47.9; Estimated · #81/151
Grok Build 0.1: 28.8; Supported · #138/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Gemma 4 12B: 46.6; Estimated · #97/183
Grok Build 0.1: 41.2; Estimated · #134/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: 34.0; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: 40.4; Supported · #138/181
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: 57.6; Unranked · 1 rankable row
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: Not ranked
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: 26.1; #44/48
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Gemma 4 12B: 89.8; #21/120
Grok Build 0.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemma 4 12B and Grok Build 0.1
Category	Gemma 4 12B	Grok Build 0.1	Basis	Reading
Agentic	47.9Estimated · #81/151	28.8Supported · #138/151	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows	Directional only
Coding	46.6Estimated · #97/183	41.2Estimated · #134/183	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	34.0Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	40.4Supported · #138/181	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 0 public rows	Not comparable
Math	57.6Unranked · 1 rankable row	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	26.1#44/48	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	89.8#21/120	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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

Gemma 4 12B: API rate not published; Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1: $0.002; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 4 12B: API rate not published; Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1: $0.056; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 4 12B: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable
Grok Build 0.1: $0.08; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGemma 4 12BGrok Build 0.1

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemma 4 12B

256K

Google Gemma 4 model documentation

Grok Build 0.1

256K

Gemma 4 12B

Reasoning

Grok Build 0.1

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemma 4 12B

Open Weight

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

License

Gemma 4 12B

Open Weight

Grok Build 0.1

Proprietary

Release date

Gemma 4 12B

2026-06-03

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: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 256K.

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 evidence13 rows

Agentic

Gert Labs
Gemma 4 12B—
Grok Build 0.149.15%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

LiveCodeBench v6
Gemma 4 12B72.0%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

BBH
Gemma 4 12B53%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Gemma 4 12B43.4%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Gemma 4 12B78.8%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemma 4 12B78.8%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 12B77.2%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 12B5.2%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemma 4 12B83.4%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Gemma 4 12B77.5%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Gemma 4 12B69.1%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Gemma 4 12B79.7%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemma 4 12B48.7%
Source
Grok Build 0.1—
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemma 4 12B 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, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Gemma 4 12B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 46.6 to 41.2. Gemma 4 12B and Grok Build 0.1 are 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, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Gemma 4 12B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 47.9 to 28.8. Gemma 4 12B 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, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Both models list the same context window, 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Gemma 4 12B vs Grok Build 0.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Gemma 4 12B vs Grok Build 0.1

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Which costs less, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 12B or Grok Build 0.1?

Related comparisons

Watch Gemma 4 12B vs Grok Build 0.1