Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 25.0 points higher (46.4 vs 21.4) but costs 4.3× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $1145; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 21.4, and Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) when 21.4 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 21.4 | −53.9% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 53.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $1,145.36 | −76.9% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 76.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.31s | 112.14s | +178.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 178.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.60 / $3.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) vs Grok 4.7 (Xhigh): 53.9% less intelligence, 76.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 178.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)Qwen3.6 27B (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/qwen3-6-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/qwen3-6-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill