Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 57 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 57
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 70.8% to 77.7%.
Qwen3.7 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 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. Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
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 Code Fast 1 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin→ 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Agentic | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 70.8%B 77.7%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.9SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 75.7% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 70.8% | 77.7% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 36.2% | 45.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 22.2% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 77.7%.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 70.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.