Model comparison
Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.3 leads 52.5 to 43.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 42.8% for Grok 4.3 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.3.
Side by side
| Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 30K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 32 |
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-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1357 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1415 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 944.17 | 221.8 |
| SciCode | 47.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 49.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 27.7 (#99), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 35.26 | 462.69 |
| GDP.pdf | 8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1165 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 35.9 (#68), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 25% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1396 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 90.7% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 38.3% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.16 | 143.98 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 55.2% | — |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 46.0 (#74), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 42.8% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 14.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 11% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#62), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.8% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.2% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1385 | 1407 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#104), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1229 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 50.5 (#120), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1385 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1422 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1412 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1379 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1356 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1399 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1398 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 72.1 (#140), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1366 | 1374 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#123), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1393 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.3: 58.5 (#118), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1380 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1406 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1075 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 8.9× 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-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.3 lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.6 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.