Grok 4.7 (Low) vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Low) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.7 Plus by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Grok 4.7 (Low) scores 17.0 points higher (42.2 vs 25.2) but costs 3.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1631 vs $428; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Low) when you need intelligence above 25.2, and Qwen3.7 Plus when 25.2 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Low) | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.2 | 25.2 | −40.3% Qwen3.7 Plus is 40.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,630.69 | $427.73 | −73.8% Qwen3.7 Plus is 73.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.90s | 45.52s | +252.9% Qwen3.7 Plus is 252.9% 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 4.7 (Low): 40.3% less intelligence, 73.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 252.9% 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.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Grok 4.7 (Low)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-4-7-low/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill