Roboflow

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 9b

Compare Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.

Compare Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 9b live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 9b
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 9b on Vision Evals

Grok 4.5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.5 9b leads 38.1% to 19.0%.

Overall, Grok 4.5 averages 65.8% (#42 of 61) against 64.4% (#45 of 61) for Qwen3.5 9b.

Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0021 vs $0.0084 per sample), while Grok 4.5 is faster (20.8s vs 41.4s per sample).

Grok 4.5Qwen3.5 9b

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.5Qwen3.5 9b
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Mar 2026
Context Window500K262K
Parameters9B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.100
Output $/1M$6.00$0.150
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
65.8%
64.4%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.4%FP864.2%AWQ-INT464.3%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0084$0.0021
Avg speed / sample20.75s41.36s
By task
Object Detection (low)
19.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6
$0.011
38.1%
±5.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 33.5 to 44.9
$0
Object Detection (high)
17.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0
$0.020
–
Counting (low)
59.5%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2
$0.0065
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0
Counting (high)
57.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8
$0.012
–
Identification (low)
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0046
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0067
–
OCR (low)
92.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.5
$0.0068
84.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.0 to 84.9
$0
OCR (high)
92.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.9
$0.012
–
Data Extraction (low)
83.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 84.5
$0.0044
78.3%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 80.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
81.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 83.5
$0.0061
–
Reasoning (low)
57.6%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9
$0.0082
45.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 44.4 to 47.7
$0
Reasoning (high)
59.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3
$0.019
–

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 9b: Overview

Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.

For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.

Qwen3.5 9b

Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.

The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 65.8% (#42 of 61) against 64.4% (#45 of 61) for Qwen3.5 9b. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.5 9b leads with 38.1% against 19.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0021 per sample against $0.0084. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Grok 4.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 20.8s per inference against 41.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.