Roboflow

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Compare Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.

Compare Grok 4.6 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 4.6
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.6% to 34.4%.

Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 67.8% (#17 of 30) against 61.7% (#28 of 30) for Qwen3.7 Flash.

Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 7.4s per sample).

Grok 4.6Qwen3.7 Flash

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyGrok 4.6Qwen3.7 Flash
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 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
67.8%
61.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0069$0.0001
Avg speed / sample7.39s6.32s
By task
Object Detection
20.2%
$0.0068
42.8%
$0.0001
Counting
70.3%
$0.0074
46.0%
<$0.0001
Identification
78.1%
$0.0048
84.4%
<$0.0001
OCR
92.0%
$0.0086
84.1%
$0.0001
Data Extraction
84.5%
$0.0042
78.3%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (low)
61.6%
$0.0087
34.4%
<$0.0001
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.027
60.9%
$0.0005

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview

Grok 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family rather than producing pixel level outputs such as boxes or masks.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

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 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 67.8% (#17 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.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.6 leads with 61.6% against 34.4%. 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 $0.0069. Grok 4.6 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 7.4s. 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.