Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
65
ZAYA1-74B-Preview
58
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. ZAYA1-74B-Preview only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+7.8 difference
Grok 4.20
ZAYA1-74B-Preview
$2 / $6
$0 / $0
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
256K
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. ZAYA1-74B-Preview only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 65 to 58. 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 53.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 76.7% to 53.2%.
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 ZAYA1-74B-Preview. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for ZAYA1-74B-Preview.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 65 to 58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 76.7% and 53.2%.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 53.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.