Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.68/100
Margin
12.5pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 10 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 59 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
10
Grok 4.20 only
8
Qwen3.7 Plus only
59
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 54.68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 91.7 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 60.9% to 85.9%.

Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Qwen3.7 Plus.

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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGrok 4.20ΔQwen3.7 Plus
ReasoningGrok 4.2053.3Margin→ 38.4Qwen3.7 Plus91.7
AgenticGrok 4.2047.1Margin→ 24.6Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
MultimodalGrok 4.2070.1Margin→ 11.4Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
CodingGrok 4.2067.1Margin→ 8.5Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Grok 4.20B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 60.9%B 85.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 25
    CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.1%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 23.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 51.8%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.8
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 75.2%B 79%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.8
    MMMU-Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 76.7%B 77.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1
    SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.20233 tok/sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.2010.33 sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.202MQwen3.7 Plus1MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 47.1%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSearchQASource 62.8%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 38.36%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
LiveCodeBench ProSource 74.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.7%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 51.8%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 4.06%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.5%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 53.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource —9.1%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQA-DSource 88.5%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 31.6%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.3%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 50.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —90.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —33.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —22.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —25.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 75.2%79%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CharXivSource 60.9%85.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ERQASource 54.1%69.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SimpleVQASource 57.4%81.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 65.8%71.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12571288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 85.9%.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 91.7 versus 53.3. Grok 4.20 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 70.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.