Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Grok 4.3

xAI

64.2/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 54.5–74.0

Qwen3.6-27B

Alibaba

52.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #99

90% interval 41.3–64.3

Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 52.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Grok 4.3

    Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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: listed-rates

  • 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.

Shared results
1
Grok 4.3 only
1
Qwen3.6-27B only
37
Like-for-like categories
0 / 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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
59.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
77.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
53.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
89.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
76.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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 4.3
$0.0025
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok 4.3
$0.07
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Grok 4.3
$0.09
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.6-27B 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Grok 4.3

1M

Qwen3.6-27B

262K

API model ID

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Grok 4.3

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Qwen3.6-27B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok 4.3

Reasoning

Qwen3.6-27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

License

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

Release date

Grok 4.3

2026-04-30

Qwen3.6-27B

2026-04-21

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
Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 52.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Grok 4.3 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Grok 4.3
API / mo$2,813
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence39 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Grok 4.343.86%
    Qwen3.6-27B54.84%

    Qwen3.6-27B leads this result

  • ResearchClawBench

    Grok 4.312.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-27B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B72.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenWebBench

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B1487
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B70.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B77.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B71.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B53.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B83.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B36.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B66%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B91.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B24%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B93.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B90.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B84.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B94.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B82.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B75.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B84.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DynaMath

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MStar

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B81.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B56.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B81.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CountBench

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B97.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B92.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B62.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B87.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B84.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Grok 4.3—
    Qwen3.6-27B94.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 52.79, 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 4.3 or Qwen3.6-27B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.6-27B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.6-27B?

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 4.3 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.6-27B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.