Roboflow

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 9b

Compare Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side.

Compare Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 9b live

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

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 9b on Vision Evals

Grok 4.7 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 64.2% to 47.7%.

Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 71.9% (#22 of 54) against 64.3% (#41 of 54) for Qwen3.5 9b.

Qwen3.5 9b is cheaper ($0.0017 vs $0.012 per sample), while Grok 4.7 is faster (23.6s vs 33.6s per sample).

Grok 4.7Qwen3.5 9b

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Qwen3.5 9b
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Mar 2026
Context Window500K262K
Parameters9B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.60$0.100
Output $/1M$4.80$0.150
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
Classification
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object Detection
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
71.9%
64.3%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.8%FP864.4%AWQ-INT464.3%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.012$0.0017
Avg speed / sample23.55s33.65s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.017
46.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.8 to 47.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.023
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.0086
51.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0
$0
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.013
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0050
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0074
OCR (low)
92.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.1 to 93.4
$0.014
77.5%
±7.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.4 to 83.0
$0
OCR (high)
93.5%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.1 to 93.8
$0.034
Data Extraction (low)
84.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 87.6
$0.0048
78.7%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 80.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
87.6%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0054
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.012
47.7%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 50.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.019

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 9b: Overview

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary model from SpaceXAI, released on September 21, 2026. It accepts text and images as input and returns text. It extends Grok 4.6 and is listed at the same API price.

Its Vision Evals scores are on the leaderboard. Running it in the Playground is not available yet, because the inference workflow is not ready.

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 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 71.9% (#22 of 54) against 64.3% (#41 of 54) for Qwen3.5 9b. 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 4.7 leads with 64.2% against 47.7%. 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 $0.0017 per sample against $0.012. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Grok 4.7 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 23.6s per inference against 33.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.