Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
78
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
64
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 unranked · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #13
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.
Agentic
+4.4 difference
Coding
+5.9 difference
Multimodal
+0.1 difference
Grok 4.20
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
$2 / $6
N/A
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
262K
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.
Grok 4.20 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 78 to 64. 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.
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 78 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 78%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 61. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.3 versus 75.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.