Roboflow

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.

Compare Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash live

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

Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.

Open Classification in the full playground
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 42.8% to 18.0%.

Overall, Grok 4.5 averages 64.3% (#25 of 30) against 61.7% (#28 of 30) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 14.3s per sample).

Grok 4.5Qwen3.7 Flash

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.5Qwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.030
Output $/1M$6.00$0.130
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
64.3%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0077$0.0001
Avg speed / sample14.33s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
18.0%
$0.0100
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
55.4%
$0.0065
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
78.1%
$0.0045
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
92.5%
$0.0065
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
83.5%
$0.0044
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
58.3%
$0.0076
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
59.6%
$0.011
60.9%
$0.0005

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.

Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.

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 64.3% (#25 of 30) against 61.7% (#28 of 30) for Qwen3.7 Flash. 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, Qwen3.7 Flash leads with 42.8% against 18.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0077. Grok 4.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 14.3s. 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.