Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.41/100
Margin
3.0pts
← winning
51.36/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

BenchAlign evidence: Grok 4.20 estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 7 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 51 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
7
Grok 4.20 only
12
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
51
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 68 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryGrok 4.20ΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
CodingGrok 4.2067.1Margin→ 6.7Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8
MultimodalGrok 4.2070.1Margin→ 6.2Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3
AgenticGrok 4.2047.1Margin→ 4.4Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
ReasoningGrok 4.2053.3MarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured
KnowledgeGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8
MathGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Grok 4.20B · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 60.9%B 78%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 17.1
    CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.1%B 51.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 4.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 76.7%B 73.4%
    Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 3.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 51.8%B 49.5%
    Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 2.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. Grok 4.20 wins this benchmark.

  5. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 75.2%B 75.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 0.1
    MMMU-Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.20233 tok/sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.2010.33 sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.202MQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 47.1%51.5%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
DeepSearchQASource 62.8%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 38.36%42.65%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
LiveCodeBench ProSource 74.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.7%73.4%Grok 4.20 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 51.8%49.5%Grok 4.20 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 4.06%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —41.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource —34.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 53.3%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
GPQA-DSource 88.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 31.6%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.3%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 50.2%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —85.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
HLESource —21.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —31.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —20.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-21.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —18.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —49.7%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source —92.7%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMU-ProSource 75.2%75.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
CharXivSource 60.9%78%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
ERQASource 54.1%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 57.4%58.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 65.8%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1055—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1262—Not comparable
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource —64.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 68 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 78%.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.5 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 70.1. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.