Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.3
79
Qwen3.5-27B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4.3 unranked · Qwen3.5-27B #16
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+15.7 difference
Knowledge
+26.7 difference
Inst. Following
+13.7 difference
Grok 4.3
Qwen3.5-27B
$1.25 / $2.5
$0 / $0
209 t/s
N/A
12.36s
N/A
1M
262K
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 90.1% and 85.5%.
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.6 versus 53.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63 versus 47.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 95 versus 81.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.