Model comparison
Gemma 4 31B vs Grok 4.5
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Grok 4.5 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 10 to Grok 4.5.
Updated July 18, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 13
- Grok 4.5 only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 76.72 to 61.08. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.7 against 41.6.
Grok 4.5 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 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 500K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemma 4 31B | Δ | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 31B41.6 | Margin→ 23.1 | Grok 4.564.7 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 31BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.583.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 31B52.9 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 31B76.9 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.5Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 31B | Grok 4.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Grok 4.5$2 input / $6 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Grok 4.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 31BNot available | Grok 4.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 31B256K | Grok 4.5500K | Grok 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 14.4% | 45.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 15.2% | 51.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 804 | 1535 | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 35.26% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 28.3% | 40.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.0% | 13.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 15.1% | 32.6% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 53% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1323 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 81.6% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 41.6% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 75.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 43.4% | 72.5% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.4% | 54.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 19.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.4% | 53.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.7% | 93.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.7% | 40.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -45.4% | 26.4% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 19.9% | 52.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 53.5% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B | Grok 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 76.72 to 61.08.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Grok 4.5?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.