Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.68/100
Margin
18.2pts
winning →
72.84/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.7 Max share 6 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 52 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
6
Grok 4.20 only
12
Qwen3.7 Max only
52
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 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 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 54.68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 90.4 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 47.1% to 69.7%.

Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Qwen3.7 Max.

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 scores and score margins for Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryGrok 4.20ΔQwen3.7 Max
ReasoningGrok 4.2053.3Margin→ 37.1Qwen3.7 Max90.4
AgenticGrok 4.2047.1Margin→ 22.6Qwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingGrok 4.2067.1Margin→ 10.8Qwen3.7 Max77.9
KnowledgeGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max64.2
MathGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
MultimodalGrok 4.2070.1MarginNo overlapQwen3.7 MaxNot measured
Inst. FollowingGrok 4.20Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Grok 4.20B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 47.1%B 69.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 22.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 51.8%B 60.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 8.8
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 76.7%B 80.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.20$2 input / $6 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.20233 tok/sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.2010.33 sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.202MQwen3.7 Max1MGrok 4.20 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 47.1%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
DeepSearchQASource 62.8%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 38.36%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1273Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
LiveCodeBench ProSource 74.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 76.7%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-bench ProSource 51.8%60.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 4.06%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —66.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —48.8%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 53.3%—Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
CritPtSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —69.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQA-DSource 88.5%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 31.6%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.3%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 50.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource —92.4%Not comparable
HLESource —41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —46.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —92.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —38.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —14.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —30.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —22.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMMU-ProSource 75.2%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 60.9%—Not comparable
ERQASource 54.1%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 57.4%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 65.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12571293Qwen3.7 Max leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4.20Qwen3.7 MaxResult
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —80.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 47.1% and 69.7%.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 53.3. Grok 4.20 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.7 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

xAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.