Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-27B
Compare Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals
Grok 4.7 scores higher on 2 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.5-27B leads 50.5% to 40.4%.
Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 64.1% (#30 of 63) for Qwen3.5-27B.
Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0043 vs $0.020 per sample), while Grok 4.7 is faster (33.3s vs 80.4s per sample).
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | — | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 27B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.260 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $2.60 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Not listed | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Not listed | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Not listed | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.5% | 64.1% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.020 | $0.0043 |
| Avg speed / sample | 33.31s | 80.37s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 | 50.5% ±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 | – |
| Counting (low) | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 | 67.6% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 60.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2 | – |
| Identification (low) | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 | 80.2% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | – |
| OCR | 63.6% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 | 58.1% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 | – |
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview
Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.
The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5-27B performed slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Qwen3.5-27B averages 64.1% (#30 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7. 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, Qwen3.5-27B leads with 50.5% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0043 per sample against $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Grok 4.7 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 33.3s per inference against 80.4s. 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.