Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Laguna S 2.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.68/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Laguna S 2.1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 4 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
2
Grok 4.20 only
16
Laguna S 2.1 only
4
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Grok 4.20 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.20 and Laguna S 2.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 30.0x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Laguna S 2.1.

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 scores and score margins for Grok 4.20 and Laguna S 2.1
CategoryGrok 4.20ΔLaguna S 2.1
AgenticGrok 4.2047.1Margin→ 23.1Laguna S 2.170.2
CodingGrok 4.2067.1Margin← 7.7Laguna S 2.159.4
ReasoningGrok 4.2053.3MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MultimodalGrok 4.2070.1MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Grok 4.20B · Laguna S 2.1

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.1%B 70.2%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 23.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 51.8%B 59.4%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 7.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.20233 tok/sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.2010.33 sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.202MLaguna S 2.11MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticLaguna S 2.1 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 47.1%70.2%Laguna S 2.1 leads
DeepSearchQASource 62.8%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 38.36%—Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingGrok 4.20 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Result
LiveCodeBench ProSource 74.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 51.8%59.4%Laguna S 2.1 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 4.06%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.2%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.5%Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 53.3%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Result
GPQA-DSource 88.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 31.6%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.3%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 50.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Laguna S 2.1Result
MMMU-ProSource 75.2%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 60.9%—Not comparable
ERQASource 54.1%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 57.4%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 65.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1257—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Laguna S 2.1?

Grok 4.20 and Laguna S 2.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Laguna S 2.1?

Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 59.4. 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 Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.2 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.