Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 66% for Grok 4.6 and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 56.5% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 19.7% | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | 12% |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 51% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | 1454 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1431 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.