Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.6-PlusVSxAIGrok 4.20
Our Take
We recommend choosing Qwen3.6-Plus because it outperforms or matches Grok 4.20 across reasoning, coding, and context capacity while being cheaper or equal in cost. Choose Qwen3.6-Plus for superior overall value.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Qwen3.6-Plus scored 56.6%, while Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Qwen3.6-Plus scored 90.4%, while Grok 4.20 scored 90%.
Context Window: Qwen3.6-Plus supports a 1M context window compared to 1M for Grok 4.20.
Cost Comparison: Qwen3.6-Plus blended CPM is $0.5/$3 compared to $2/$6 for Grok 4.20.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+4.8%)
56.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.4%)
90.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.7x cheaper
$1.13Input: $0.50 | Output: $3.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
51.8%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
90%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.00Input: $2.00 | Output: $6.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Qwen3.6-Plus vs Grok 4.20
Qwen3.6-Plus is cheaper than Grok 4.20. Qwen3.6-Plus has a blended cost of $1.13/1M tokens, which is about 2.7x cheaper than Grok 4.20 at $3.00/1M tokens.
Qwen3.6-Plus is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 56.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Grok 4.20 which scores 51.8%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Qwen3.6-Plus and Grok 4.20.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.