Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

76.72/100
Margin
3.9pts
← winning
72.84/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.5 #7 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Max share 23 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Grok 4.5; 35 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
Grok 4.5 only
5
Qwen3.7 Max only
35
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Max only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 76.72 to 72.84. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 83.3 against 69.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 83.3% to 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 500K for Grok 4.5.

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 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryGrok 4.5ΔQwen3.7 Max
AgenticGrok 4.583.3Margin← 13.6Qwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingGrok 4.564.7Margin→ 13.2Qwen3.7 Max77.9
ReasoningGrok 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
KnowledgeGrok 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max64.2
MathGrok 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualGrok 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingGrok 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Grok 4.5B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.3%B 69.7%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 13.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.5 scored 83.3%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.7%B 60.6%
    Winner: Grok 4.5Δ 4.1
    SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.5 scored 64.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Grok 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGrok 4.5$2 input / $6 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGrok 4.5Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGrok 4.5Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGrok 4.5500KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGrok 4.5 wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 83.3%69.7%Grok 4.5 leads
deepSweSource 53%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 45.7%30.6%Grok 4.5 leads
GDPval-AASource 51.7%38.7%Grok 4.5 leads
GDPval-AASource 15351273Grok 4.5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1323908Grok 4.5 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 51.4%25.6%Grok 4.5 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 40.8%45.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Harvey LABSource 92.4%83.4%Grok 4.5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 32.6%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 81.6%74.5%Grok 4.5 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
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.7%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench ProSource 64.7%60.6%Grok 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78%78.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 83.3%69.7%Grok 4.5 leads
cursorBench32Source 66.7%—Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source 91.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 72.5%66.0%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.1%48.8%Grok 4.5 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 15.4%13.4%Grok 4.5 leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.8%46.0%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 93.1%92.3%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-HLESource 40.3%38.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.4%14.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 52.1%30.1%Grok 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 53.5%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQASource —92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —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
Math
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 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 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 80.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251293Grok 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 MaxResult
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —80.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 76.72 to 72.84. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 83.3% and 69.7%.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 64.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Grok 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 69.7. Inside this category, AA Briefcase 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.