Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
72
Step 3.7 Flash
72
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; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+18.8 difference
Coding
+4.7 difference
Grok 4.20
Step 3.7 Flash
$2 / $6
$0.2 / $1.15
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
256K
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; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.20 and Step 3.7 Flash finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional 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 $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 5.2x on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.
Grok 4.20 and Step 3.7 Flash are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 56.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 47.1. Inside this category, DeepSearchQA 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.