Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 42.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 56% for Grok 4.7 and 15.9% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.138.8
Released2026-09-212026-04-27
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K1M
Max output500K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$6$1.13
Results tracked3913

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
LMArena Coding1427—
ALE-Bench—326.4

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
Chess Puzzles38%20%
Mystery Game Puzzles29%18%
DTBench96%77.1%
LMCA49.4%31%
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53143.26
SimpleBench—35.2%
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1413—

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%84.4%
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LMArena Math1407—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond92.7%83.3%
SimpleQA Verified56%15.9%
LMArena Expert1422—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1389—
LMArena Chinese1455—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena Russian1397—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1413—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1399—
LMArena Creative Writing1391—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
LMArena Multi-Turn1393—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 7.1× 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 Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper