xAI: Grok 4
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
xAI: Grok 4 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare xAI: Grok 4 by xAI against Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B by Qwen, context windows of 256K vs 262K, tested across 38 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, xAI: Grok 4 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
xAI: Grok 4 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. xAI: Grok 4 costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 256K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between xAI: Grok 4 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
xAI: Grok 4 is made by xai while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. xAI: Grok 4 has a 256K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, xAI: Grok 4 costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
xAI: Grok 4Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — bigger model tier, newer.
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is 4.2x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
100%
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 3.9x more transitions
xAI: Grok 4
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
53%Vocabulary54%
18wSentence Length14w
0.67Hedging0.39
2.7Bold6.9
2.7Lists4.2
0.07Emoji0.23
0.86Headings0.93
0.04Transitions0.17
Based on 21 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.
We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.
Free preview13 of 58 slides
FAQ