Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 31.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 4% for Grok 4.1 Fast and 26% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 30K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1242 | 1515 |
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 69.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.1% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,107 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 56% | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | 85.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 87.7% | 92.3% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.68 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 4% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1408 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1399 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen3.7 Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1415 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1349 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1413 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | 1460 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3.7 Max?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen3.7 Max share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.