Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
70
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 2M context window.
Agentic
+35.0 difference
Coding
+22.5 difference
Grok 4.20
Sakana Fugu Ultra
$2 / $6
$5 / $30
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
1M
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 2M context window.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 82.1 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 47.1% to 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.20. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Sakana Fugu Ultra.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 70. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 47.1% and 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 83.5 versus 61. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.1 versus 47.1. 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.