Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Gemma 4 E2B
~39
1/8 categoriesGrok Code Fast 1
56
Winner · 3/8 categoriesGemma 4 E2B· Grok Code Fast 1
Pick Grok Code Fast 1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Grok Code Fast 1 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 56 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok Code Fast 1's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 63.3 against 19.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BBH, 21.9% to 75%. Gemma 4 E2B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemma 4 E2B 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. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
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 E2B | Grok Code Fast 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 59% |
| BrowseComp | — | 57% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 51% |
| CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins | ||
| LiveCodeBench | 44% | 80% |
| HumanEval | — | 60% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 70.8% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 42% |
| Multimodal & GroundedGrok Code Fast 1 wins | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 44.2% | 40% |
| OfficeQA Pro | — | 63% |
| ReasoningGrok Code Fast 1 wins | ||
| BBH | 21.9% | 75% |
| MRCRv2 | 19.1% | 66% |
| MuSR | — | 59% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 64% |
| KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B wins | ||
| GPQA | 43.4% | 63% |
| MMLU-Pro | 60% | 65% |
| MMLU | — | 64% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 61% |
| HLE | — | 7% |
| FrontierScience | — | 57% |
| SimpleQA | — | 61% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | — | 79% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MGSM | — | 75% |
| MMLU-ProX | — | 73% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | — | 64% |
| AIME 2024 | — | 66% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 65% |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | — | 60% |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | — | 62% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 61% |
| BRUMO 2025 | — | 63% |
| MATH-500 | — | 73% |
Grok Code Fast 1 is ahead overall, 56 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BBH, where the scores are 21.9% and 75%.
Gemma 4 E2B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 54.1 versus 49. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.3 versus 44. Inside this category, LiveCodeBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 63.3 versus 19.1. Inside this category, BBH is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 50.4 versus 44.2. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.