Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent vs Qwen3.6 27B

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent xAI

45.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 42.4 to 24.4.
  • Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
  • Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.541.9
Released2026-03-092026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output30K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$2.50$3.60
Results tracked2011

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: 42.4 (#91), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
LMArena Coding1458—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —, Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Search1204—

Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1448—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
DTBench—78.1%
LMCA—34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.47

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
LMArena Math1441—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond—85.9%
LMArena Expert1445—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1440—
LMArena Chinese1475—
LMArena French1467—
LMArena German1456—
LMArena Japanese1405—
LMArena Korean1416—
LMArena Russian1457—
LMArena Spanish1447—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1420—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1430—

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1450—
LMArena Creative Writing1435—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1451—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent and Qwen3.6 27B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper