Model comparison

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 12, 2026. 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent xAI

46.2

Rank #65 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 33.7.
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
Provider	xAI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	46.2	42.5
Released	2026-03-09	2026-02-23
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Context window	1M	1M
Max output	30K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.25	$0.10
Output $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.40
Results tracked	20	32

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding	1457	1412
LMArena WebDev	—	1244
ALE-Bench	—	221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Search	1204	—
Vending-Bench 2	—	462.69

Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts	1448	1403
NYT Connections (extended)	89.6%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	21%
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	20%
DTBench	—	82.9%
LMCA	—	29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	143.98

Math Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math	1442	1407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	—	0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert	1445	1407
GPQA Diamond	—	82.3%
SimpleQA Verified	—	20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision	1259	—

Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English	1440	1385
LMArena Chinese	1475	1446
LMArena French	1466	1412
LMArena German	1456	1390
LMArena Japanese	1405	1368
LMArena Korean	1416	1344
LMArena Russian	1457	1379
LMArena Spanish	1447	1400

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following	1420	1374

Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query	1431	1392

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent	Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text	1450	1397
LMArena Creative Writing	1436	1343
LMArena Multi-Turn	1452	1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.