# Grok 4.7 vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-7-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 92.7% for Grok 4.7 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 37 | 293 |
| Context | 500K | — |
| Input $/M | $2 | — |
| Output $/M | $6 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1155 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1130 |
| 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: 57.8 (#39)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1155 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1126 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1101 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | 1089 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1140 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.