whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)

Qwen3.6-Flash

VS
xAI

Grok 4.20

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Grok 4.20 is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 51.8% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: Qwen3.6-Flash is 5.3x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, Qwen3.6-Flash offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Grok 4.20 fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Qwen3.6-Flash

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/A
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
85.5%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)5.3x cheaper
$0.56Input: $0.25 | Output: $1.50
Speed
128 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

Grok 4.20

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+)
51.8%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+4.5%)
90%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00
Speed1.8x faster
233 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.6-Flash is cheaper than Grok 4.20. Qwen3.6-Flash has a blended cost of $0.56/1M tokens, which is about 5.3x cheaper than Grok 4.20 at $3.00/1M tokens.

Grok 4.20 is faster than Qwen3.6-Flash. Grok 4.20 generates 233 tokens per second (tps) compared to Qwen3.6-Flash which generates 128 tokens per second.

Grok 4.20 is better for coding tasks. It scores 51.8% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Qwen3.6-Flash which scores N/A.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard