Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3 32B

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 . 14 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

46.6

Rank #56 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 32B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 40.1 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 57.4% for Grok 4.7 and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B 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.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen3 32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.638.8
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K131K
Max output500K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$6$2.80
Results tracked2126

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
SciCode57.4%35.4%
LMArena Coding14231358
Aider Polyglot—40%
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1636—
FrontierSWE29.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
CritPt17.7%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14091335
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Math13931399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
ProofBench34%—

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Expert14131362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English13921317
LMArena Chinese14761357
LMArena Russian13961311
LMArena German—1341

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14061305

Long Context Too close to call

Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14161327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text13971340
LMArena Creative Writing13911297
LMArena Multi-Turn13891331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3 32B?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 37.3 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 Qwen3 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper