Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen Turbo

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 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 4.7 leads 57.8 to 15.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen Turbo
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.127.1
Released2026-09-212024-11-01
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K1M
Max output500K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$6$0.20
Results tracked393

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
LMArena Coding1427—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1413—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA49.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53—

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%6.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LMArena Math1407—
MATH Level 5—56.2%

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond92.7%41.8%
SimpleQA Verified56%—
LMArena Expert1422—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1389—
LMArena Chinese1455—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena Russian1397—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
LMArena Longer Query1413—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen Turbo
LMArena Text1399—
LMArena Creative Writing1391—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
LMArena Multi-Turn1393—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen Turbo?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 34× 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 Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen Turbo share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper