Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 55× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 28.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 66% for Grok 4.6 and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| SciCode | 56.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 23% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| CritPt | 19.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | — |
| DTBench | 97.3% | — |
| LMCA | 48.5% | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 51% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | — |
| LMArena French | 1461 | — |
| LMArena German | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 55× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.