Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen Plus
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 20 |
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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1328 |
| 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 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 96% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 49.4% | 24% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1328 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1347 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1303 |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen Plus?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen Plus share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.