Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct costs 3.4× 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.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 41.8.
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper at $0.50 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2025-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 131K |
| Max output | 500K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 25 |
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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 42.5 (#98)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1440 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 31.1 (#81)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1428 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 66.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| 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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 38.8 (#126)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1440 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 46.7% |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 41.8 (#106)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1417 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 78.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 63% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct leads
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 52.1 (#93)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1407 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1460 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1413 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1404 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | 1435 |
| LMArena German | — | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1395 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1364 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 70.8 (#159)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1389 |
| IFEval | — | 81% |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 37.0 (#223)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1403 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 55.6% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 58.0 (#121)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1417 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1334 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1416 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| WildBench | — | 80.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct costs 3.4× 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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 42.5 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-Next 80B-A3B Instruct share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has 25.