Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 15.5 points higher (29.5 vs 14.0) but costs 9.1× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $250; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 14.0, and Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) when 14.0 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 29.5 | +110.7% Qwen3.7 Max is 2.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $2,277.12 | +809.5% Qwen3.7 Max is 9.1× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.89s | 16.63s | +182.3% Qwen3.7 Max is 182.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 110.7% more intelligence, 809.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 182.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.7 MaxToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill