Roboflow

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Compare Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.5 35B A3B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.

Compare Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 4.7
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 35B A3B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 35B A3B leads 52.9% to 40.4%.

Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#29 of 61) against 62.5% (#30 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is both cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (31.9s vs 33.3s per sample).

Grok 4.7Qwen3.5 35B A3B

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 10, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Qwen3.5 35B A3B
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modality—multimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window500K262K
ParametersUnknown35B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.080
Output $/1M$6.00$0.750
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionNot listedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesNot listedSupported
Multimodal VisionNot listedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
63.5%
62.5%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
FP859.8%GPTQ-INT462.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0016
Avg speed / sample33.31s31.88s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
52.9%
±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9
$0
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
–
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
62.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
–
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
–
OCR
63.6%
$0.023
–
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
54.1%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024
–

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview

Grok 4.7

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 35B A3B

The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.

Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.7 performed slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#29 of 61) against 62.5% (#30 of 61) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. 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 35B A3B leads with 52.9% against 40.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 35B A3B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 31.9s per inference against 33.3s. 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.