Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Grok 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 2.5 Pro wins on 13/22 benchmarks
Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 13 of 22 shared benchmarks. Leads in coding · knowledge.
Category leads
coding·Gemini 2.5 Proreasoning·Grok 4knowledge·Gemini 2.5 Promath·Grok 4language·Grok 4
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Grok 4
#73 by perf·no signal
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#61 by perf·no signal
Best value
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1.6x better value than Grok 4
Grok 4
6.1 pts/$
$9.00/M
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
xAI
$250.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Head to head
22 benchmarks · 2 models
Grok 4Gemini 2.5 Pro
Aider polyglot
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +3.5
Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework.
Grok 4
79.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
83.1
ARC-AGI
Grok 4 leads by +25.7
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Grok 4
66.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
ARC-AGI-2
Grok 4 leads by +11.1
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Grok 4
16.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Balrog
Grok 4 leads by +0.3
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
Grok 4
43.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
43.3
Chess Puzzles
Grok 4 leads by +8.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Grok 4
28.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
20.0
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.8
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Grok 4
47.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
49.7
Fiction.LiveBench
Grok 4 leads by +2.7
Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination.
Grok 4
94.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
91.7
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Grok 4 leads by +5.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Grok 4
19.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
14.1
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Grok 4
2.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
GeoBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +36.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Grok 4
45.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
GPQA diamond
Grok 4 leads by +2.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Grok 4
82.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.3
Grok 4
72.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
HELM · IFEval
Grok 4 leads by +10.9
Grok 4
94.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.2
Grok 4
85.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
Grok 4 leads by +18.7
Grok 4
60.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +6.0
Grok 4
79.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
Lech Mazur Writing
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +5.3
Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication.
Grok 4
80.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +0.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Grok 4
84.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
SimpleBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.3
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Grok 4
52.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +8.1
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Grok 4
47.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
Terminal Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +5.4
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Grok 4
27.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.6
WeirdML
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +8.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Grok 4
45.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
Aider polyglot Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework. | 79.6 | 83.1 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 66.7 | 41.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 16.0 | 4.9 |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 43.6 | 43.3 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 28.0 | 20.0 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 47.9 | 49.7 |
Fiction.LiveBench Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination. | 94.4 | 91.7 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 19.7 | 14.1 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 2.1 | 4.2 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 45.0 | 81.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 82.7 | 80.4 |
HELM · GPQA | 72.6 | 74.9 |
HELM · IFEval | 94.9 | 84.0 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | 85.1 | 86.3 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | 60.3 | 41.6 |
HELM · WildBench | 79.7 | 85.7 |
Lech Mazur Writing Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication. | 80.7 | 86.0 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 84.0 | 84.7 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 52.6 | 54.9 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 47.9 | 56.0 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 27.2 | 32.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 45.7 | 54.0 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $3.00 | $15.00 | 256K tokens (~128 books) | $60.00 | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $34.38 |