Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated September 25, 2026. Rank says Grok 4.6 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Grok 4.6 has the higher public score, 69.19 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Grok 4.6

xAI

69.19/100

Supported · Public rank #15

90% interval 66.3–72.1

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

55.78/100

Supported · Public rank #50

90% interval 45.6–65.9

Shared results: 1
Grok 4.6 only: 16
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 51
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

Supported: Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

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.

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 leads on the public agentic lane, 67.9 to 35.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

62.0Grok 4.643.6Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

Grok 4.6 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Grok 4.6: 67.9; Supported · #8/105
Qwen3.7 Plus: 35.2; Supported · #55/105
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Grok 4.6 leads

Coding

Directional only

Grok 4.6: 62.0; Supported · #14/135
Qwen3.7 Plus: 43.6; Estimated · #49/135
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Grok 4.6: 69.0; Supported · #13/158
Qwen3.7 Plus: 52.3; Estimated · #50/158
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 57.6; #16/19
Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.1; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Grok 4.6: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 72.4; #19/50
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Grok 4.6: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.9; #3/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Grok 4.6: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 89.2; #18/124
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Grok 4.6: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.2; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Grok 4.6	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	67.9Supported · #8/105	35.2Supported · #55/105	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 11 public rows	Grok 4.6 leads
Coding	62.0Supported · #14/135	43.6Estimated · #49/135	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	69.0Supported · #13/158	52.3Estimated · #50/158	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	57.6#16/19	75.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not ranked	72.4#19/50	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	78.9#3/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	89.2#18/124	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	78.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 4.6: $0.005; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok 4.6: $0.118; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Grok 4.6: $0.2; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGrok 4.6Qwen3.7 Plus

Context window

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

Grok 4.6

500K

xAI Grok 4.6 release notes

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

Grok 4.6

grok-4.6

xAI Grok 4.6 release notes

Qwen3.7 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 4.6

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

xAI Grok 4.6 release notes

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Grok 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok 4.6

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok 4.6

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Grok 4.6

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Grok 4.6

2026-08-12

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

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 4.6 has the higher public score, 69.19 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

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

Questions

Which is better, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Grok 4.6 has the higher public score, 69.19 versus 55.78, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Grok 4.6 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 62 to 43.6. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Grok 4.6 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 67.9 to 35.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which costs less, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 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 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 500K.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence68 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Grok 4.626.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Grok 4.657.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Grok 4.678.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Grok 4.6 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Grok 4.613%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Bug Hunt Bench
Grok 4.627 fixes
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Grok 4.665.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Grok 4.670.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Grok 4.661.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Grok 4.687.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Grok 4.625.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Grok 4.688.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Grok 4.695.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Grok 4.687.00%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Grok 4.667.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Grok 4.62.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Grok 4.694.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Grok 4.689.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

HMMT Feb 2026
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Grok 4.6—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

68 public results · 1 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 25, 2026

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Agentic work

Long documents

Coding work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus