Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 12B
53
Grok Code Fast 1
39
Pick Gemma 4 12B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+1.2 difference
Gemma 4 12B
Grok Code Fast 1
N/A
$0.2 / $1.5
N/A
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
256K
256K
Pick Gemma 4 12B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Gemma 4 12B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 53 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 12B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72 against 70.8.
Gemma 4 12B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Gemma 4 12B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 53 to 39.
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 70.8. Grok Code Fast 1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.