Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- 47.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
GPT-4o mini Audio vs Grok 4.20
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o mini Audio
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4o mini Audio
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
18 Grok 4.20 only
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT-4o mini Audio only
- 0
- Grok 4.20 only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- 67.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- 53.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-4o mini Audio
- Not measured
- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-4o mini Audio | Grok 4.20 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 47.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 67.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 53.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 70.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.00045
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.20
- $0.005
- Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.0093
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.20
- $0.118
- Fits in one request
GPT-4o mini Audio has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-4o mini Audio
- $0.039
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Grok 4.20
- $0.5
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-4o mini AudioGrok 4.20
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-4o mini Audio
Grok 4.20
2M
API model ID
GPT-4o mini Audio
gpt-4o-mini-audio-preview
OpenAI model documentationGrok 4.20
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not published
OpenAI model documentationGrok 4.20
Not published
Documented inputs
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-4o mini Audio
Non-Reasoning
Grok 4.20
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-4o mini Audio
Proprietary
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
License
GPT-4o mini Audio
Proprietary
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-4o mini Audio
Not sourced
Grok 4.20
2026-03-10
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0093 vs $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.039 vs $0.5.
- Context tradeoff
- Grok 4.20 has the larger documented window (2M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence18 rows
Agentic
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2074.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2076.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2051.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.204.06%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2088.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2031.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2020.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2050.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2075.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2060.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2054.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2057.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
GPT-4o mini Audio—Grok 4.2065.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GPT-4o mini Audio or Grok 4.20?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4o mini Audio or Grok 4.20?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-4o mini Audio or Grok 4.20?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, GPT-4o mini Audio or Grok 4.20?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00045 on GPT-4o mini Audio and $0.005 on Grok 4.20; repository review costs $0.0093 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.039 and $0.5. GPT-4o mini Audio does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-4o mini Audio has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-4o mini Audio or Grok 4.20?
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch GPT-4o mini Audio vs Grok 4.20
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.