GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
Quick verdict: which should you choose?
Choose GPT-5.2 if you need
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need a documented intelligence_index of 46.6 for complex reasoning.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need unified multimodal processing optimized for scalable document-level analysis.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you prefer OpenAI's ecosystem and single-model handling of files, images, and text.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you want to avoid multi-agent coordination overhead on standard workflows.
Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent if you need
- ✓Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent if you need the largest context window (2M tokens).
- ✓Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent if you need the lower output price of $6 per 1M tokens.
- ✓Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent if you require native multi-agent coordination for complex workflows.
- ✓Choose Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent if your tasks benefit from extremely long-context handling of text, images, and files.
Verdict
GPT-5.2 leads on measured intelligence (46.6 index) and unified multimodal processing for document-scale tasks, while Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent wins on context length (2M vs 400k tokens) and price ($6 vs $14 per 1M). Both remain proprietary multimodal systems without audio or video support. The choice hinges on whether users prioritize known intelligence metrics and simplicity or extreme context plus multi-agent coordination.
GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: side by side
| Spec | GPT-5.2 | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 46.6 | — | Tie |
| Output speed | — | — | Tie |
| Output price | $14.00/1M | $6.00/1M | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Context | 400K | 2000K | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | Tie |
| Provider | OpenAI | xAI | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Context Length
Winner: Grok 4.20 Multi-AgentGrok 4.20 Multi-Agent provides a 2,000,000-token context window compared with GPT-5.2's 400,000 tokens. This gives Grok a clear advantage for massive-context tasks. GPT-5.2 notes a risk of diluted focus in very long inputs while Grok highlights support for extremely long contexts.
Pricing
Winner: Grok 4.20 Multi-AgentGrok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists output pricing at $6 per 1M tokens versus GPT-5.2 at $14 per 1M tokens. The lower price favors Grok for high-volume usage. Both models are proprietary with no other cost details provided.
Intelligence & Processing
Winner: GPT-5.2GPT-5.2 reports an intelligence_index of 46.6 while Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent provides no index value. GPT-5.2 emphasizes unified multimodal processing and scalable document analysis. Grok instead highlights multi-agent coordination for workflows.
Multimodal Support
Winner: TieBoth models support text, images, and files natively with no audio or video modalities. GPT-5.2 describes unified processing while Grok notes native handling plus agent coordination. Neither claims superiority in modality breadth.
GPT-5.2
Pros
- +Extensive context window
- +Support for files, images, and text
- +Unified multimodal processing
- +Scalable document-level analysis
Cons
- –High resource use with maximum context
- –No native audio or video modalities
- –Risk of diluted focus in very long inputs
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Pros
- +Supports extremely long contexts
- +Coordinates multiple agents for workflows
- +Handles text, images, and files natively
Cons
- –Multi-agent setups may add latency
- –Coordination overhead on simple tasks
- –No audio or video modalities
Summary: GPT-5.2 vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Select GPT-5.2 when a measured intelligence score and streamlined multimodal document work are priorities. Select Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent when maximum context length and lower cost matter most. Both share the same core limitations around missing audio/video support.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.2 is stronger where intelligence metrics and unified processing are needed; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is stronger on context size and price. Neither is universally better.