Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3-1.7B
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 19.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.
- Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | — |
| Max output | 500K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | — |
| Results tracked | 39 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 0% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 49.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | 8.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 38% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen3-1.7B?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen3-1.7B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.