Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4 #50 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4 and Qwen3.6-27B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Grok 4; 41 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Grok 4 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
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 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok 4 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Grok 4.
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 | Grok 4 | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Grok 415.3 | Margin→ 73.9 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Agentic | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4Not available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 454 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 415.60 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4128K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74.9% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.34% | 54.84% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| React Native EvalsSource | 72.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 39.8% | Grok 4 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.3% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.7% | 84.2% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 23.9% | 21.6% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.8% | -19.8% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.4% | 19.2% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.2% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 19.655% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 68.8% | 74.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 53.7% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Grok 4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.42 to 53.82.
Which is better for math, Grok 4 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 15.3. Grok 4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.