Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.5 leads 44.4 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 65.4% for Grok 4.5 and 0.4% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Grok 4.5 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-08 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 33 |
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), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1553 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 65.4% | 0.4% |
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 70% | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 45.2% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.92 | 153.68 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 31% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1459 | 1490 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1488 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), Qwen3.7 Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1496 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | — |
| LMArena German | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1460 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Grok 4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 50.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Max share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.