Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
64
Grok 4.20
64
Treat this as a split decision. Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Grok 4.20 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window.
Coding
+19.4 difference
Multimodal
+6.1 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Grok 4.20
$0 / $0
$2 / $6
N/A
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
256K
2M
Treat this as a split decision. Gemma 4 31B makes more sense if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Grok 4.20 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window.
Gemma 4 31B and Grok 4.20 finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
Gemma 4 31B and Grok 4.20 are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 41.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 70.8. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.