Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.1 to 49.5.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | — |
| Max output | 500K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | 1314 |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.4% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | 1299 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 17.7% | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1393 | 1298 |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | 1289 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | 1271 |
| LMArena German | — | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1275 |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.