Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Grok 4.20
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Grok 4.20 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 16 to Grok 4.20.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 18
- Grok 4.20 only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemma 4 26B A4B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.96 to 54.68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 26B A4B's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 73.8 against 70.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 73.8% to 75.2%.
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 Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | Grok 4.20 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | Margin← 3.7 | Grok 4.2070.1 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2047.1 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2067.1 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.2053.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 | MarginNo overlap | Grok 4.20Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 73.8%B 75.2%Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 1.4MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 73.8%; Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.20 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | Grok 4.2010.33 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Grok 4.202M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 47.1% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.36% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 17.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | 31.6% | Grok 4.20 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.3% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 73.8% | 75.2% | Grok 4.20 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 60.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 57.4% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Grok 4.20 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Grok 4.20?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.96 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 73.8% and 75.2%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Grok 4.20?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 70.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.