Skip to main content

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

60.42/100
Margin
3.4pts
← winning
57.01/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4 #50 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4 and Qwen3.5 397B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Grok 4; 42 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
13
Grok 4 only
3
Qwen3.5 397B only
42
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Grok 4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.42 to 57.01. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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 and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryGrok 4ΔQwen3.5 397B
MathGrok 415.3Margin 75.3Qwen3.5 397B90.6
AgenticGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.5
CodingGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B66.5
ReasoningGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B63.2
KnowledgeGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.6
MultilingualGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
MultimodalGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6
Inst. FollowingGrok 4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Operational comparison

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

MetricGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4Not availableQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 454 tok/sQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sQwen3.5 397B has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 415.60 sQwen3.5 397B2.44 sQwen3.5 397B reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4128KQwen3.5 397B128KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74.9%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Gert LabsSource 42.34%46.76%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 52.5%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 62%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 56.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 51.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 68.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 43.7%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 37.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 36.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 46.1%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 74.2%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 74.0%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 14.2%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 19.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 15.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 962Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
React Native EvalsSource 72.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%42.0%Grok 4 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.2%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 83.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 50.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 48.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
AA-LCRSource 68.0%65.7%Grok 4 leads
CritPtSource 2.0%1.7%Grok 4 leads
LongBench v2Source 63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 68.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 33.3%33.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 87.7%89.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-HLESource 23.9%27.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.8%-29.8%Grok 4 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.4%31.4%Grok 4 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 64.2%89.1%Grok 4 leads
GPQASource 88.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 87.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 94.9%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93%Not comparable
HLESource 28.7%Not comparable
MathQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 19.655%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
AIME26Source 93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 94.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 92.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 87.9%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 80.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 68.8%77.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
MMMU-ProSource 79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 88.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.7%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 65.6%Not comparable
V*Source 95.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5 397BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 53.7%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
IFEvalSource 92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Grok 4 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Grok 4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.42 to 57.01.

Which is better for math, Grok 4 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 15.3. Grok 4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 22, 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.