Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen Turbo
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 99.2% for Grok 4.6 and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| SciCode | 56.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| CritPt | 19.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| DTBench | 97.3% | — |
| LMCA | 48.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 6.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 51% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 41.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | — |
| LMArena French | 1461 | — |
| LMArena German | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen Turbo?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen Turbo share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.