Agentic
Like-for-like- Grok 4.20
- 47.1
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 61.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Updated August 19, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 64.81 versus 55.17, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
7 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
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
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
11 Grok 4.20 only
7 Shared
37 Qwen3.6 Plus only
- Shared results
- 7
- Grok 4.20 only
- 11
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 37
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 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.
Coding
Like-for-like- Grok 4.20
- 67.1
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 70.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Grok 4.20
- 70.1
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 79.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- 53.3
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 62.0
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 57.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 60.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 84.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok 4.20
- Not measured
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- 82.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok 4.20 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 47.1 | 61.6 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Coding | 67.1 | 70.3 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Multimodal | 70.1 | 79.8 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Reasoning | 53.3 | 62.0 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 57.1 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 60.5 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 84.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.3 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXiv
Multimodal
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
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
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok 4.20
- $0.118
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
SpecificationGrok 4.20Qwen3.6 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok 4.20
2M
Qwen3.6 Plus
1M
API model ID
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
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
Qwen3.6 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok 4.20
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok 4.20
Reasoning
Qwen3.6 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
License
Grok 4.20
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Grok 4.20
2026-03-10
Qwen3.6 Plus
2026-04-02
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
- Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 64.81 versus 55.17, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- 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 evidence55 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.2047.1%SourceQwen3.6 Plus61.6%SourceQwen3.6 Plus leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Grok 4.2062.8%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGrok 4.2038.36%Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
Claw-Eval
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
Grok 4.2074.2%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Grok 4.2076.7%SourceQwen3.6 Plus78.8%SourceQwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Grok 4.2051.8%SourceQwen3.6 Plus56.6%SourceQwen3.6 Plus leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGrok 4.204.06%Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%SourceNot directly comparable
EEBench
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus12.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Grok 4.2088.5%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Grok 4.2031.6%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Grok 4.2020.3%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Grok 4.2050.2%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Grok 4.2075.2%SourceQwen3.6 Plus78.8%SourceQwen3.6 Plus leads this result
CharXiv
Grok 4.2060.9%SourceQwen3.6 Plus81.5%SourceQwen3.6 Plus leads this result
ERQA
Grok 4.2054.1%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Grok 4.2057.4%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Grok 4.2065.8%SourceQwen3.6 Plus—Not directly comparable
MMMU
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Grok 4.20—Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 64.81 versus 55.17, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which costs less, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 19, 2026
Watch Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.