Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5-Max

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 35.3.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.140.7
Released2026-09-212025-01-25
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3927

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-Max: 41.8 (#117)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding14271359
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14131360
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53132.53
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
LMCA49.4%—
LiveBench—62.3%

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math14071369
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LiveBench Math—58.4%

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert14221337
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—
Confabulations—21.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English13891352
LMArena Chinese14551382
LMArena French14551396
LMArena Russian13971353
LMArena Spanish14001377
LMArena German—1350
LMArena Japanese—1300
LMArena Korean—1304

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following14041335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query14131358

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text13991367
LMArena Creative Writing13911339
LMArena Multi-Turn13931364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen2.5-Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper