Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.7 leads 36.7 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 38% for Grok 4.7 and 19% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Grok 4.7 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.151.5
Released2026-09-212026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K1M
Max output500K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$6$7.50
Results tracked3933

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), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena WebDev16391515
SciCode57.8%48.8%
LMArena Coding14271498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GBAEval—0.4%
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Too close to call

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%85.1%
CritPt18%13.4%
Chess Puzzles38%19%
LMArena Hard Prompts14131483
Mystery Game Puzzles29%32%
DTBench96%92.3%
LMCA49.4%44%
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53153.68
SimpleBench—70.4%
EBR-Bench—9.5%

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%95.6%
ProofBench34%26%
LMArena Math14071490

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond92.7%90.9%
SimpleQA Verified56%55.8%
LMArena Expert14221488

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13891474
LMArena Chinese14551530
LMArena Russian13971484
LMArena French1455—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14041460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query14131482

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13991476
LMArena Creative Writing13911449
LMArena Multi-Turn13931481
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 50.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper