Grok 4.7 (Low) vs Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Low) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) 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 4.7 (Low) scores 31.0 points higher (42.2 vs 11.2) but costs 5.0× as much to run the benchmark ($1631 vs $329; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Low) when you need intelligence above 11.2, and Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) when 11.2 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Low) | Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.2 | 11.2 | −73.5% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 73.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,630.69 | $328.86 | −79.8% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 79.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.72s | 43.82s | +244.5% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 244.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.14 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) vs Grok 4.7 (Low): 73.5% less intelligence, 79.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 244.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Grok 4.7 (Low)Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/qwen3-5-9b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/qwen3-5-9b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill