Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side.
Compare Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Qwen3.7 Plus 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 39.7%.
Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 71.9% (#22 of 54) against 67.4% (#30 of 54) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.012 per sample) and faster (7.0s vs 23.6s per sample).
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | — | — |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.60 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $4.80 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Vision Language | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 71.9% | 67.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.012 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 23.55s | 7.01s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 | 60.1% |
| 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 | 50.0% |
| 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 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | – |
| OCR (low) | 92.6% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.1 to 93.4 | 86.5% |
| OCR (high) | 93.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.1 to 93.8 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 84.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.5 to 87.6 | 83.5% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.6% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 | 68.2% |
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: Overview
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.
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 67.4% (#30 of 54) for Qwen3.7 Plus. 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 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.012. Grok 4.7 is priced at $1.60 per 1M input tokens and $4.80 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.0s per inference against 23.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.