Agentic
Directional only- GPT-5.3 Codex
- 71.4
- Grok 4.20
- 47.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Updated July 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
GPT-5.3 Codex has the higher public score estimate, 65.75 versus 53.88, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. GPT-5.3 Codex 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
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
| Category | GPT-5.3 Codex | Grok 4.20 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 71.4 | 47.1 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 67.2 | 67.1 | Directional only3 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| 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 |
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.20 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok 4.20 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok 4.20 has the lower modeled cost
GPT-5.3 Codex 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.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.3 Codex
Grok 4.20
2M
GPT-5.3 Codex
gpt-5.3-codex
OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex model documentationGrok 4.20
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.3 Codex
Not published
Grok 4.20
Not published
GPT-5.3 Codex
text, image
OpenAI model catalogGrok 4.20
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogGrok 4.20
Not sourced
GPT-5.3 Codex
Reasoning
Grok 4.20
Reasoning
GPT-5.3 Codex
Proprietary
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
GPT-5.3 Codex
Proprietary
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
GPT-5.3 Codex
2026-02-05
Grok 4.20
2026-03-10
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.3 Codex leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGPT-5.3 Codex leads this result
JobBench
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.3 Codex leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.3 Codex leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGPT-5.3 Codex leads this result
LiveCodeBench Pro
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Not directly comparable
GPT-5.3 Codex has the higher public score estimate, 65.75 versus 53.88, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00875 on GPT-5.3 Codex and $0.005 on Grok 4.20; repository review costs $0.1295 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.525 and $0.5. GPT-5.3 Codex 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.
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 400K.
Last updated July 29, 2026
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.