Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Superseded.xAI has newer models in this line:Grok 4.3Grok 4.5Grok 4.6

Grok 4.20

EstablishedReleased Mar 10, 2026ProprietaryReasoning2M context

Released Mar 10, 2026 see all recent releases

Decision reading
Grok 4.20 scores 67.1 out of 100 and ranks #29 of 232. This profile shows 23 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #43. API pricing is $2 input and $6 output per million tokens.

Data as of September 10, 2026 · How the score is built

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #43. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

23 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #145.

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

67.1/100

field median 56.2

#29 of 232 ranked models

Price

$2input / $6 output

input median $0.97

blended $4

Speed

103tok/s

field median 86.5 tok/s

First token 25 s

Context

2Mtokens

field median 256,000

Reported for this model; direct source link not stored

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Grok 4.20 category percentile values

  • Agentic5th percentile
  • Coding7th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Knowledge54th percentile
  • MathNot eligible
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Multimodal11th percentile
  • Instruction followingNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#145/152
  2. Coding#141/151
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Knowledge#85/183
  5. MathNot ranked
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Multimodal#43/48
  8. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

What it costs to get this score

Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.

Explore all models

The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.

Current modelGrok 4.20 · 67.1 score · $4 blended per million tokens
30405060708090$0.50$1$5$10$25↘ frontierGrok 4.20

Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic2/4 verified
  2. Coding3/6 verified
  3. Reasoning1/2 verified
  4. Knowledge2/6 verified
  5. MathNot measured
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Multimodal0/5 verified
  8. Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not published
Context window
2M
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yet
Output modalities
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Not sourced yet
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Established
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing record
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #145 of 152Percentile 5thWeight 22%4 benchmarksMixed sources26.7
CodingRank #141 of 151Percentile 7thWeight 20%6 benchmarksMixed sources28.2
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksMixed sources34.2
KnowledgeRank #85 of 183Percentile 54thWeight 12%6 benchmarksMixed sources49.4
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MultimodalRank #43 of 48Percentile 11thWeight 12%5 benchmarksReported34.6
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding6 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore51.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 81.2%

Gap29.4 behindWeightWeighted 25%
LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI runScore84.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5%

Gap6.2 behindWeightWeighted 15%
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore76.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap19.3 behindWeightWeighted 10%
LiveCodeBench ProScore74.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 90.8%

Gap16.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1Score4.06%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00%

Gap66.9 behindWeightDisplay only
SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI runScore72.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0%

Gap24.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic4 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Terminal-Bench 2.0Score47.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9%

Gap44.8 behindWeightWeighted 30%
DeepSearchQAScore62.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 95.0%

Gap32.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game BenchmarkScore38.36%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97%

Gap34.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Benchmark exact
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI runScore44.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3%

Gap43.1 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning2 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2Score53.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95%

Gap41.7 behindWeightWeighted 25%
ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3Score0.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 62.7%

Gap62.6 behindWeightWeighted 15%
Knowledge6 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore31.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 60.9%

Gap29.3 behindWeightWeighted 10%
MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI runScore86.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4%

Gap6.1 behindWeightWeighted 10%
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore88.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap7.5 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench HardScore20.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark · 42.8%

Gap22.5 behindWeightDisplay only
MedXpertQA (Text)MedXpertQA TextScore50.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark · 52.6%

Gap2.4 behindWeightDisplay only
GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI runScore88.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5%

Gap6.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Multimodal5 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding ProScore75.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6%

Gap8.4 behindWeightWeighted 40%
CharXivCharXiv ReasoningScore60.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap32.6 behindWeightWeighted 20%
ERQAScore54.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8%

Gap23.7 behindWeightDisplay only
SimpleVQAScore57.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7%

Gap24.3 behindWeightDisplay only
MedXpertQA (MM)MedXpertQA MultimodalScore65.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 80.4%

Gap14.6 behindWeightDisplay only

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Nov 17, 2025

    Grok 4.1

    Score 57.6 · Price not listed

  2. Mar 10, 2026 · you are here

    Grok 4.20

    Score 67.1 · $2 / $6

Reasoning

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Grok 4.20 ranks #29 of 232 on the public leaderboard with a score of 67.13/100. Its source-verified position is #23 of 130.

Grok 4.20 is a proprietary model with a 2M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Tracked as unresolved. xAI's current docs now present this model as Grok 4.20, but a clean exact-value benchmark table is still missing. BenchLM also stores secondary exact values from Meta AI's April 8, 2026 comparison chart, which labels the same family as Grok 4.2 Reasoning.

Grok 4.20 sits in the Grok 4.20 family with Grok 4.20 Multi-agent. Its explicit predecessor is Grok 4.1. 23 of 435 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #43, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #145. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Radar

Grok 4.20 release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Grok 4.20 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.

Frequently asked questions

How does Grok 4.20 perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Grok 4.20 ranks #29 out of 232 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 67.13/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 23 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Grok 4.20 good for knowledge and understanding?

Grok 4.20 ranks #85 out of 183 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 49.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Grok 4.20 good for coding and programming?

Grok 4.20 ranks #141 out of 151 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 28.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Grok 4.20 good for reasoning and logic?

Grok 4.20 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Grok 4.20 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Grok 4.20 ranks #145 out of 152 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 26.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Grok 4.20 good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Grok 4.20 ranks #43 out of 48 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 34.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Which sibling models are related to Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 belongs to the Grok 4.20 family. Related tracked variants include Grok 4.20 Multi-agent. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.

Does Grok 4.20 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Grok 4.20 currently has 24 source-displayable rows across 435 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Grok 4.20?

Grok 4.20 has a reported context window of 2M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.

Compare Grok 4.20 with every tracked model482 comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Watch Grok 4.20 in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.