Model comparison
Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.3 leads 35.9 to 24.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for Grok 4.3 and 70% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.3.
- Grok 4.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 42.0 |
| Released | 2026-04-17 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 30K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 41.6 (#121), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1357 | 1254 |
| SciCode | 47.3% | 29.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1415 | 1410 |
| WeirdML | 49.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 944.17 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 27.7 (#99), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GDP.pdf | 8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1165 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 35.26 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 35.9 (#68), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 8% | 0.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 25% | 10% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1400 |
| DTBench | 90.7% | 80% |
| LMCA | 38.3% | 29.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.16 | 142.52 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 55.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 46.0 (#74), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1404 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 42.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 14.6% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56% |
| ProofBench | 11% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#62), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.8% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1385 | 1408 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#104), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1229 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 50.5 (#120), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1385 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1422 | 1457 |
| LMArena French | 1412 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1379 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1356 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 1399 | 1376 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1398 | 1392 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 72.1 (#140), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1366 | 1379 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#123), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1393 | 1389 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 58.5 (#118), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1395 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1380 | 1346 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1406 | 1390 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1075 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Grok 4.3 lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?
Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.6 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.3 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.