Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.7 leads 57.8 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 131K |
| Max output | 500K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 7 |
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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | 128.52 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 49.4% | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 46.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | — |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.4× 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 Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.