Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
72
Laguna M.1
51
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+1.3 difference
Coding
+2.4 difference
Grok 4.20
Laguna M.1
$2 / $6
$0 / $0
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
131K
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Laguna M.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 51. 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 58.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 51.8% to 49.2%.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Laguna M.1. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 131K for Laguna M.1.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 51.8% and 49.2%.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 58.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 47.1 versus 45.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.