Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok 4 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Grok 4 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Grok 4; 44 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Grok 4 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 14 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 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 61 versus 59. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Grok 415.3 | Margin→ 72.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Agentic | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 454 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 415.60 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4128K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74.9% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.34% | 42.65% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| React Native EvalsSource | 72.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 37.9% | 34.8% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 35.8% | Grok 4 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.3% | 31.6% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.7% | 84.1% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 23.9% | 20.2% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.8% | -21.4% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.4% | 18.9% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.2% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 19.655% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 68.8% | 75.0% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 53.7% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Grok 4 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 59.
Which is better for math, Grok 4 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 15.3. Grok 4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.