Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 49.1 to 20.7.
  • Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.129.9
Released2026-09-212024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K131K
Max output500K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$6$8.40
Results tracked396

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
LMArena Coding1427—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
APEX-Agents54.6%—
OSWorld—5%
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark—36%
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1413—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA49.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53—

Math Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LMArena Math1407—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—
LMArena Expert1422—

Multimodal Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision12281107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1389—
LMArena Chinese1455—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena Russian1397—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1413—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1399—
LMArena Creative Writing1391—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
LMArena Multi-Turn1393—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

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-VL 72B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper