Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs QwQ-32B

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 37.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7QwQ-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.139.8
Released2026-09-212024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3936

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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14271333
FrontierCode47.6%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles38%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14131325
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53137.6
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA49.4%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%59.2%
LMArena Math14071359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond92.7%65.3%
LMArena Expert14221324
SimpleQA Verified56%—
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13891305
LMArena Chinese14551378
LMArena French14551336
LMArena Russian13971297
LMArena Spanish14001354
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14041297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14131308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7QwQ-32B
LMArena Text13991329
LMArena Creative Writing13911288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing20071257
LMArena Multi-Turn13931314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than QwQ-32B?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and QwQ-32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper