# Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-7-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.7 leads 57.8 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.1% for Grok 4.7 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 30.1 |
| Rank | 37 | 297 |
| Context | 500K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $2 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $6 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | 128.52 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 49.4% | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | 46.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | — |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | — |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.4× 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 Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 38.7 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 Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.