Skip to main content

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3 235B 2507

Updated July 28, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Grok 4.20

xAI

53.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #93

90% interval 37.1–70.6

Qwen3 235B 2507

Alibaba

55.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #85

90% interval 43.7–66.7

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Grok 4.20

    Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Qwen3 235B 2507 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Grok 4.20 only
18
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
47.1
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
67.1
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
53.3
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
Not measured
Qwen3 235B 2507
78.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
Not measured
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
Not measured
Qwen3 235B 2507
79.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
70.1
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Grok 4.20
Not measured
Qwen3 235B 2507
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Grok 4.20
$0.005
Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B 2507
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok 4.20
$0.118
Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B 2507
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Grok 4.20
$0.5
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3 235B 2507
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3 235B 2507 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3 235B 2507 has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Grok 4.20

2M

Qwen3 235B 2507

128K

API model ID

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3 235B 2507

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Grok 4.20

Not published

Qwen3 235B 2507

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3 235B 2507

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3 235B 2507

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3 235B 2507

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok 4.20

Reasoning

Qwen3 235B 2507

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Grok 4.20

Proprietary

Qwen3 235B 2507

Open Weight

License

Grok 4.20

Proprietary

Qwen3 235B 2507

Open Weight

Release date

Grok 4.20

2026-03-10

Qwen3 235B 2507

2025-07-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented window (2M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Grok 4.2047.1%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Grok 4.2062.8%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Grok 4.2038.36%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Grok 4.2074.2%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Grok 4.2076.7%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Grok 4.2051.8%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Grok 4.204.06%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Grok 4.2053.3%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Grok 4.200.1%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Grok 4.2088.5%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Grok 4.2031.6%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Grok 4.2020.3%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Grok 4.2050.2%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Grok 4.20
    Qwen3 235B 250777.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Grok 4.20
    Qwen3 235B 250762.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Grok 4.20
    Qwen3 235B 250783%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Grok 4.20
    Qwen3 235B 250779.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Grok 4.2075.2%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Grok 4.2060.9%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Grok 4.2054.1%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Grok 4.2057.4%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Grok 4.2065.8%
    Source
    Qwen3 235B 2507

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 28, 2026

Keep the decision current

One weekly note on benchmark changes, pricing moves, and models worth re-testing.