Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen-14B
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.0 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | — |
| Max output | 500K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | — |
| Results tracked | 39 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1071 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1027 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | 113.03 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 49.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1068 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1031 |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1022 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen-14B?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen-14B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.