# Grok 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

> Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-7-vs-qwen2-5-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.1 to 49.5.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 56 | 179 |
| Context | 500K | — |
| Input $/M | $2 | — |
| Output $/M | $6 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | 1314 |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | 1299 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 17.7% | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1393 | 1298 |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | 1289 |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | 1271 |
| LMArena German | — | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1275 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1292 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.7 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.