Model comparison
Grok 4.20 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Grok 4.20 estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Inkling share 7 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 9 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- Grok 4.20 only
- 12
- Inkling only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 68. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.4 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 60.9% to 82%.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. Grok 4.20 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 Inkling.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Grok 4.20 | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Grok 4.2047.1 | Margin→ 22.3 | Inkling69.4 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.2070.1 | Margin→ 6.4 | Inkling76.5 |
| Coding | Grok 4.2067.1 | Margin→ 1.5 | Inkling68.6 |
| Reasoning | Grok 4.2053.3 | MarginNo overlap | InklingNot measured |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Math | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 60.9%B 82%Winner: InklingΔ 21.1CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; Inkling scored 82%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 47.1%B 63.8%Winner: InklingΔ 16.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 51.8%B 54.3%Winner: InklingΔ 2.5SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Inkling scored 54.3%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 75.2%B 73.5%Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 1.7MMMU-Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%; Inkling scored 73.5%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 76.7%B 77.6%Winner: InklingΔ 0.9SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4.20 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.2010.33 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.202M | Inkling1M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticInkling wins6 benchmarks
CodingInkling wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 53.3% | — | Not comparable |
Knowledge6 benchmarks
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInkling wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 75.2% | 73.5% | Grok 4.20 leads |
| CharXivSource | 60.9% | 82% | Inkling leads |
| ERQASource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1055 | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1262 | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchSource | — | 79.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 82%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.6 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Grok 4.20 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 70.1. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.