GPT-5.1-Codex-Max vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
| Signal | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max | Delta | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | +17 | |
Benchmarks | 88 | +2 | |
Pricing | 90 | -7 | |
Context window size | 80 | -10 | |
Recency | 93 | -7 | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +65 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
Score History
87.4
current score
Tied
right now
87.4
current score
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
OpenAI
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
xAI
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent saves you $375.00/month
That's $4500.00/year compared to GPT-5.1-Codex-Max at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 87 | 87 | -- |
| Rank | #24 | #23 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Quality Rank | #24 | #23 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Adoption Rank | #24 | #23 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 400K | 2000K | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Pricing | $1.25/$10.00/M | $1.25/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 83 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max |
| Benchmarks | 88 | 86 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max |
| Pricing | 90 | 98 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Context window size | 80 | 90 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Recency | 93 | 100 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 20 | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 87/100 (rank #24), placing it in the top 92% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 87/100 (rank #23), placing it in the top 92% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Choose GPT-5.1-Codex-Max when you need:
- Agentic applications using tool/function calling
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Processing long documents or large codebases (2000K token context)
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent offers 67% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $56.25/month with Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent vs $168.75/month with GPT-5.1-Codex-Max - a $112.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (2000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (87/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
67% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max
OpenAI
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
xAI
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent saves you $9.00/month
That's 63% cheaper than GPT-5.1-Codex-Max at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-5.1-Codex-Max | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 400K | 2M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Dec 4, 2025 | Mar 31, 2026 |
The 68/100 score advantage likely stems from Grok's massive 2.0M token context window (5x larger) and superior file handling modality, which are critical for complex coding tasks involving large codebases. Function calling becomes less essential when you can fit entire repositories in context and directly process file inputs, explaining why Grok ranks #4 despite missing this feature.
For projects exceeding 400K tokens, Grok becomes essential since GPT-5.1-Codex-Max hits its context limit, but the real value emerges in output-heavy workloads where Grok's $6/M output pricing beats GPT-5.1's $10/M by 40%. A typical 1M token analysis job would cost $8 on Grok versus $11.25 on GPT-5.1, making Grok cheaper for large-scale code generation despite higher input costs.
The 128K guaranteed output is crucial for generating complete modules or documentation in one shot, while Grok's null value suggests either no hard limit or undisclosed constraints. Given Grok's 11-position rank advantage (#4 vs #15), the lack of output specification hasn't hurt real-world performance, indicating either generous limits or that most coding tasks don't approach 128K tokens anyway.
Migration requires rewriting function-based workflows into prompt-based equivalents, but Grok's 2.0M context window allows embedding entire API schemas and examples directly, potentially yielding better results than GPT-5.1's function abstractions. The 7-point score gap and $4/M output savings justify migration costs for teams processing over 500K tokens monthly.
OpenAI's mature ecosystem and function calling make GPT-5.1-Codex-Max superior for tool-integrated workflows, while its 1.6x lower input pricing ($1.25 vs $2) favors high-volume, context-light tasks like code reviews or unit test generation. The 61/100 score still places it in the top 5% of all models, making it competitive for teams already invested in OpenAI infrastructure.