Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.5 leads 56.1 to 34.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is τ²-bench Banking: 47.9% for Grok 4.5 and 9.8% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
- Grok 4.5 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2026-07-08 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 262K |
| Max output | 500K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1553 | 1400 |
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1465 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| SciCode | 54.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | 73.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | 58.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | 13% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 87.5% |
| LMCA | 45.2% | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.92 | 146.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 70% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 65.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
Math Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 88.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1459 | 1454 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1462 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | — |
Multimodal Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1496 | 1500 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | 1426 |
| LMArena Korean | 1404 | 1384 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | 1441 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1424 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | 1478 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1446 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?
Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.5 does, with 500K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.