Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Grok 4
68
1/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 6/8 categoriesGrok 4· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Qwen3.6 Plus finishes one point ahead overall, 69 to 68. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 94.3 against 82. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 16% to 28.8%. Grok 4 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Grok 4.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 57% | 61.6% |
| BrowseComp | 63% | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | 56% | 62.5% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| CodingGrok 4 wins | ||
| HumanEval | 79% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73% | 78.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 79.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | 48% | 56.6% |
| React Native Evals | 70.1% | — |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & GroundedQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 80% | 78.8% |
| OfficeQA Pro | 76% | — |
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MuSR | 81% | — |
| BBH | 83% | — |
| LongBench v2 | 72% | 62% |
| MRCRv2 | 71% | — |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 16% | — |
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMLU | 87% | — |
| GPQA | 86% | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | 84% | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | 77% | 88.5% |
| HLE | 16% | 28.8% |
| FrontierScience | 75% | — |
| SimpleQA | 83% | — |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| Instruction FollowingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| IFEval | 82% | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MGSM | 84% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 79% | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | 87% | — |
| AIME 2024 | 89% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 88% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | 84% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | 86% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | 85% | — |
| BRUMO 2025 | 87% | — |
| MATH-500 | 83% | — |
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 16% and 28.8%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 65.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Grok 4 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 64.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 59.6. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 58.1. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.8 versus 78.2. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.3 versus 82. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 80.8. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.