# Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-5-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.5 leads 60.7 to 36.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 57.2% for Grok 4.5 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 22 | 105 |
| Context | 500K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $2 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $6 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Grok 4.5: 51.7 (#34)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1552 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1473 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | 221.8 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| SciCode | 54.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#15)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.5: 56.0 (#23)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 45.2% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.02 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 70% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.5: 60.7 (#29)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1457 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#21)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1408 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.5: 37.8 (#63)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1287 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.5: 54.5 (#43)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1497 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1458 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1448 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1425 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1402 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1452 | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.5: 76.3 (#45)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#54)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1392 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.5: 65.9 (#40)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1457 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.7 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.