Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.7 Plus 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
Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) scores 19.0 points higher (44.2 vs 25.2) but costs 5.2× as much to run the benchmark ($2242 vs $428; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 25.2, and Qwen3.7 Plus when 25.2 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 44.2 | 25.2 | −43.0% Qwen3.7 Plus is 43.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,241.91 | $427.73 | −80.9% Qwen3.7 Plus is 80.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.86s | 46.03s | +21.6% Qwen3.7 Plus is 21.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Grok 4.6 (Xhigh): 43.0% less intelligence, 80.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 21.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.6 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Grok 4.6 (Xhigh)Qwen3.7 PlusToday'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-4-6-xhigh/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-6-xhigh/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill