Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.4 nano
60
Grok 4.20
73
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+4.2 difference
Multimodal
+4.7 difference
GPT-5.4 nano
Grok 4.20
$0.2 / $1.25
$2 / $6
191 t/s
233 t/s
3.64s
10.33s
400K
2M
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 60. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 70.8 against 66.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 66.1% to 75.2%.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 4.8x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 66.1% and 75.2%.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 47.1 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Tau2-Telecom is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 66.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.