Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok Code Fast 1
39
Qwen3.5 397B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #19
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+10.5 difference
Grok Code Fast 1
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.2 / $1.5
$0.6 / $3.6
172 t/s
96 t/s
2.81s
2.44s
256K
128K
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. That is roughly 2.4x on output cost alone. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 76.2%.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 60.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.