Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-4.1 mini
45
Grok 4.20
73
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+37.4 difference
GPT-4.1 mini
Grok 4.20
$0.4 / $1.6
$2 / $6
80 t/s
233 t/s
0.76s
10.33s
1M
2M
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 45. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.20's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 61 against 23.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 23.6% to 76.7%.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 mini 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 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for GPT-4.1 mini.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 23.6% and 76.7%.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.