# Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-6-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.6 leads 39.4 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 51% for Grok 4.6 and 26% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Grok 4.6 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.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 21 | 42 |
| Context | 500K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $2 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $6 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 56.5% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 19.7% | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | 9.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1483 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | 32% |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 48.5% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | 153.68 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 51% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1490 |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | 1488 |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
- Qwen3.7 Max: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | — |
| LMArena German | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1460 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | 1482 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.6 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 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 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 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.