Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.6
Qwen3.5 | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 397B | — |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.60 | $2.00 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $3.60 | $6.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.50 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.08Darkbloom | $2.20Amazon Bedrock |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.13Darkbloom | $6.60Amazon Bedrock |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 66% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76.4% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 69.3% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 65.9% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 61.3% |
APEX-SWEExpert software engineering — expert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 56.4% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 71% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 20.3% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 26% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 52.5% | — |
APEX-AgentsExpert agentic work — expert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 57.5% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 69% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 28.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 62.2% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 15.8% |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 61 |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1753 |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1577 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 85% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1528 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Feb 16 2026 | Aug 12 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.5vsClaude Fable 5.1Grok 4.6vsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.5vsGPT-6 AstraGrok 4.6vsGPT-6 AstraQwen3.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashGrok 4.6vsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Grok 4.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.5 and Grok 4.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen3.5 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.60 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $3.60 vs $6.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Qwen3.5 shipped 177 days before Grok 4.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.5 is open weight, while Grok 4.6 is proprietary.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Qwen3.5 and Grok 4.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.