Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Qwen3.7 Max
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 4 #50 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4 and Qwen3.7 Max share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Grok 4; 46 to Qwen3.7 Max.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Grok 4 only
- 4
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4 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 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 60.42. 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 mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 15.3.
Qwen3.7 Max 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. Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Grok 4.
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 4 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Grok 415.3 | Margin→ 81.8 | Qwen3.7 Max97.1 |
| Agentic | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max69.7 |
| Coding | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max77.9 |
| Reasoning | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max90.4 |
| Knowledge | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max64.2 |
| Multilingual | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max87.0 |
| Inst. Following | Grok 4Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max84.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok 4 | Qwen3.7 Max | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 454 tok/s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 415.60 s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4128K | Qwen3.7 Max1M | Qwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74.9% | 94.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 42.34% | 64.27% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1568 | Not 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 |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1273 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.7% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 908 | Not 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 |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| React Native EvalsSource | 72.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 48.8% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 60.6% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.3% | 46.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.7% | 92.3% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-HLESource | 23.9% | 38.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.8% | 14.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.4% | 30.1% | Grok 4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 64.2% | 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 |
MathQwen3.7 Max wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 60.42.
Which is better for math, Grok 4 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 15.3. Grok 4 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.