Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen1.5-110B

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.0 to 38.0.
  • Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.134.2
Released2026-09-212024-04-25
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3920

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), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Coding14271184
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—35%
BigCodeBench Complete—44.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Hard Prompts14131168
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA49.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53—
ForecastBench—57.7

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Math14071185
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Expert14221144
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen1.5-110B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Non-English13891142
LMArena Chinese14551206
LMArena French14551151
LMArena Russian13971118
LMArena Spanish14001142
LMArena German—1123
LMArena Japanese—1074
LMArena Korean—1044

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Instruction Following14041158

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Longer Query14131157

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Text13991175
LMArena Creative Writing13911148
LMArena Multi-Turn13931160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen1.5-110B?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen1.5-110B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper