Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Gemma 4 26B A4B
64
1/8 categoriesGrok 4.1 Fast
70
Winner · 2/8 categoriesGemma 4 26B A4B· Grok 4.1 Fast
Pick Grok 4.1 Fast if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Grok 4.1 Fast is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 70 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.1 Fast's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 87.9 against 44.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MRCRv2, 44.1% to 89%. Gemma 4 26B A4B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemma 4 26B A4B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok 4.1 Fast 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. Grok 4.1 Fast gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 74% |
| BrowseComp | — | 73% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 66% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 53.8% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 19.1% |
| CodingGemma 4 26B A4B wins | ||
| LiveCodeBench | 77.1% | 54% |
| HumanEval | — | 86% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 68% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 63% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 73.8% | — |
| ReasoningGrok 4.1 Fast wins | ||
| BBH | 64.8% | 87% |
| MRCRv2 | 44.1% | 89% |
| MuSR | — | 88% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 87% |
| KnowledgeGrok 4.1 Fast wins | ||
| GPQA | 82.3% | 92% |
| MMLU-Pro | 82.6% | 81% |
| HLE | 17.2% | 20% |
| HLE w/o tools | 8.7% | — |
| MMLU | — | 94% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 90% |
| FrontierScience | — | 83% |
| SimpleQA | — | 90% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | — | 90% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MGSM | — | 88% |
| MMLU-ProX | — | 83% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | — | 96% |
| AIME 2024 | — | 98% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 97% |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | — | 92% |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | — | 94% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 93% |
| BRUMO 2025 | — | 95% |
| MATH-500 | — | 89% |
Grok 4.1 Fast is ahead overall, 70 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MRCRv2, where the scores are 44.1% and 89%.
Grok 4.1 Fast has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.9 versus 56.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 60.7. Inside this category, LiveCodeBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok 4.1 Fast has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 87.9 versus 44.1. Inside this category, MRCRv2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.