Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4 Fast

Detailed comparison between Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 4 Fast for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Grok 4 Fast takes the lead.

Both Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 4 Fast are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Grok 4 Fast:

  • Grok 4 Fast has 245 higher ELO rating
  • Grok 4 Fast delivers better overall quality (4.96 vs 4.90)
  • Grok 4 Fast is 9.3s faster on average
  • Grok 4 Fast has a 26.0% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Gemini 2.5 Pro

1400

Grok 4 Fast

1645

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Gemini 2.5 Pro

32.3%

Grok 4 Fast

58.3%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Gemini 2.5 Pro

4.90

Grok 4 Fast

4.96

Average Latency

Response time

Gemini 2.5 Pro

15199ms

Grok 4 Fast

5851ms

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4 FastDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1400
1645
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
32.3%
58.3%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.90
4.96
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$1.25
$0.20
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$10.00
$0.50
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
1049K
2000K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-06-17
2025-09-19
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
15.2s
5.9s
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By benchmark

Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.

MSMARCO

MetricGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4 FastDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.90
4.90
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.93
4.90
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.93
4.90
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.90
4.90
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.93
4.92
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
12449ms
3894ms
Average response time
Min7629ms1742msFastest response time
Max23066ms6649msSlowest response time

PG

MetricGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4 FastDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
5.00
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
5.00
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
5.00
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
5.00
4.97
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
5.00
4.99
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
17834ms
9142ms
Average response time
Min11067ms4767msFastest response time
Max49308ms17055msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4 FastDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.80
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.83
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.80
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.77
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.63
4.83
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.77
4.97
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
15314ms
4516ms
Average response time
Min8817ms2358msFastest response time
Max35365ms14942msSlowest response time

Explore More

Compare more LLMs

See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.