Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 9.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 6 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 17.0.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct specifications
	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Provider	xAI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	53.1	29.0
Released	2026-09-21	2024-09
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	500K	131K
Max output	500K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$2	$0.17
Output $ / M tokens	$6	$0.70
Results tracked	39	15

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 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
FrontierCode	47.6%	—
CursorBench	46.3%	—
LMArena WebDev	1639	—
FrontierSWE	29.5%	—
SciCode	57.8%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	37.6%
LMArena Coding	1427	—
BigCodeBench Complete	—	46.1%

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
APEX-Agents	54.6%	—
BALROG	—	7.8%
GDP.pdf	22.8%	—
Vending-Bench 2	10,537	—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles	38%	0%
DTBench	96%	47.7%
LMCA	49.4%	6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index	153.53	118.51
NYT Connections (extended)	76.8%	—
CritPt	18%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1413	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	29%	—

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	98.1%	2.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	53%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4	17.1%	—
ProofBench	34%	—
Omni-MATH	—	29.4%
LMArena Math	1407	—

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond	92.7%	35.5%
SimpleQA Verified	56%	—
MMLU-Pro	—	53.9%
GPQA (HELM)	—	34.1%
LMArena Expert	1422	—
MMLU	—	72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision	1228	—
Blueprint-Bench 2	32.5%	—
Furniture Assembly	20.8%	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English	1389	—
LMArena Chinese	1455	—
LMArena French	1455	—
LMArena Russian	1397	—
LMArena Spanish	1400	—

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval	—	74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following	1404	—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query	1413	—

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok 4.7	Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text	1399	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1391	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	2007	—
WildBench	—	73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn	1393	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 36.5 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 7B Instruct share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.