GoogleGemini 3.1 ProVSxAIGrok 4.20
Our Take
We recommend Gemini 3.1 Pro for its clear benchmark advantage, or the 1.5x cheaper Grok 4.20 only if your budget requires optimizing costs for very high-volume pipelines. While Gemini 3.1 Pro offers superior reasoning and coding, it carries a moderate price premium. Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro for quality, or Grok 4.20 for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 54.2%, while Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 94.3%, while Grok 4.20 scored 90%.
Cost Efficiency: Grok 4.20 pricing ($2/M input, $6/M output) is 1.5x cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro ($2/M input, $12/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+2.4%)
54.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.3%)
94.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$4.50Input: $2.00 | Output: $12.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.5x cheaper
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 is cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro. Grok 4.20 has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.5x cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro at $4.50/1M tokens.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 54.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.