Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.1 Fast's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 33.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 87.4% for Grok 4.1 Fast and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.20 / $0.50 for Grok 4.1 Fast.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 30K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1242 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 69.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,107 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | 43.8% |
| SimpleBench | 56% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1408 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1399 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | — |
| LMArena French | 1415 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1349 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1413 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.1 Fast's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Grok 4.1 Fast lists at $0.20 and $0.50.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.