Agentic
Directional only- Grok 4.20
- 26.7
- Supported · #145/152
- MiniMax M2.5
- 41.1
- Estimated · #112/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Grok 4.20 vs MiniMax M2.5
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Grok 4.20 has the higher public score estimate, 67.13 versus 55.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M2.5
MiniMax M2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M2.5
MiniMax M2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiniMax M2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiniMax M2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniMax M2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniMax M2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
22 Grok 4.20 only
1 Shared
- Shared results
- 1
- Grok 4.20 only
- 22
- MiniMax M2.5 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Grok 4.20
- 28.2
- Supported · #141/151
- MiniMax M2.5
- 48.6
- Estimated · #68/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- 34.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- 49.4
- Supported · #85/183
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- 34.6
- #43/48
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not ranked
- MiniMax M2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok 4.20 | MiniMax M2.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 26.7Supported · #145/152 | 41.1Estimated · #112/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 28.2Supported · #141/151 | 48.6Estimated · #68/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 34.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 49.4Supported · #85/183 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 34.6#43/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
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.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Grok 4.20
- $0.005
- Fits in one request
- MiniMax M2.5
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok 4.20
- $0.118
- Fits in one request
- MiniMax M2.5
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok 4.20
- $0.5
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- MiniMax M2.5
- $0.078
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiniMax M2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniMax M2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGrok 4.20MiniMax M2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok 4.20
2M
MiniMax M2.5
128K
API model ID
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
MiniMax M2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok 4.20
Not published
MiniMax M2.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
MiniMax M2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
MiniMax M2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
MiniMax M2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok 4.20
Reasoning
MiniMax M2.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
MiniMax M2.5
Proprietary
License
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
MiniMax M2.5
Proprietary
Release date
Grok 4.20
2026-03-10
MiniMax M2.5
2025-10-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Grok 4.20 has the higher public score estimate, 67.13 versus 55.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.118 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.5 vs $0.078.
- Context tradeoff
- Grok 4.20 has the larger documented window (2M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence23 rows
Agentic
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
Grok 4.2074.2%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Grok 4.2076.7%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Grok 4.2051.8%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGrok 4.204.06%MiniMax M2.514.85%MiniMax M2.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Grok 4.2084.3%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Grok 4.2072.2%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Grok 4.2088.5%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Grok 4.2031.6%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Grok 4.2020.3%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Grok 4.2050.2%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Grok 4.2088.6%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Grok 4.2086.3%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Grok 4.2075.2%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Grok 4.2060.9%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Grok 4.2054.1%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Grok 4.2057.4%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Grok 4.2065.8%SourceMiniMax M2.5—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or MiniMax M2.5?
Grok 4.20 has the higher public score estimate, 67.13 versus 55.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or MiniMax M2.5?
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 48.6 to 28.2. MiniMax M2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or MiniMax M2.5?
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 41.1 to 26.7. MiniMax M2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Grok 4.20 or MiniMax M2.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.005 on Grok 4.20 and $0.0009 on MiniMax M2.5; repository review costs $0.118 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.5 and $0.078. MiniMax M2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniMax M2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.20 or MiniMax M2.5?
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Grok 4.20 vs MiniMax M2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.