Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Grok 4vsQwen3.7 Flash
Updated Jul 2026

Grok 4vsQwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper than Grok 4 at $0.03/M vs $3/M input tokens.

Grok 4 and Qwen3.7 Flash compared across 13 shared prompts
SpecGrok 4Qwen3.7 Flash
Input price$3/M tokens$0.03/M tokens
Output price$15/M tokens$0.13/M tokens
Context window256K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2025Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 13 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Grok 4234 words
Recipe: Pantry Pirate's Tomato Tango This is a simple savory pasta dish that's hearty, flavorful, and perfect for a quick weeknight meal. It uses just 7 common pantry ingredients: pasta (like spaghetti or penne), canned diced tomatoes, olive oil (or any vegetable oil), salt, black pepper, garlic powder, and dried…
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash332 words
🥔 Golden Crunch Smash-Roasted Potatoes A crowd-pleasing side dish that delivers maximum crispiness with minimal effort. By boiling then smashing the potatoes before roasting, you create a shatteringly crisp crust while keeping the inside fluffy. This recipe relies on just seven pantry staples for perfect flavor.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Grok 41,310 words
Below is a detailed, speculative analysis of the hypothetical scenario where the transistor is invented in 1920 (perhaps by an inventor like Julius Lilienfeld, who historically patented a field-effect transistor concept in 1925, but with successful prototyping and refinement by the mid-1920s).
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,381 words
This counterfactual traces a plausible diffusion curve for an early transistor invention, acknowledging that while the underlying physics could be known in 1920, practical adoption would be constrained by materials science, precision manufacturing, and institutional readiness.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Grok 41,680 words
Below, I'll analyze the provided Software Consulting Agreement clause by clause. My analysis is based on general principles of U.S. contract law (assuming a U.S. context, as the contract appears to be drafted in a style common to U.S. agreements; if this is in another jurisdiction, local laws may vary).
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,322 words
This agreement contains several highly one-sided provisions that create significant legal, financial, and operational risks for the contractor. Below is a clause-by-clause analysis identifying exploitation risks, recommended modifications, and the underlying legal reasoning. Note: Contract law varies by jurisdiction.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Grok 4958 words
Explanation for an Experienced Software Engineer Imagine scaling up something as basic as your IDE's code autocompletion to handle the entire internet's worth of text—that's essentially what a large language model (LLM) like GPT or Claude does.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,038 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM’s training process less as “teaching” and more as optimizing a high-dimensional function across a petabyte-scale dataset, much like you’d architect a distributed system to handle massive throughput.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Grok 41,426 words
Below is my response to your query, framed as the CEO of this pharmaceutical company (let's call it PharmaCorp for reference). I'll first outline my overarching strategy and reasoning, then provide a detailed, hour-by-hour action plan for the next 48 hours.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash1,240 words
This is a high-stakes crisis requiring decisive, legally compliant, ethically grounded, and strategically coordinated action. Below is a structured, hour-by-hour executive playbook for the next 48 hours, followed by cross-cutting rationale addressing your specified dimensions.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Grok 4866 words
Below, I'll identify the three weakest claims from the pitch deck summary based on a critical analysis of their plausibility, substantiation, and logical consistency.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.7 Flash776 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch deck, along with why they raise red flags for sophisticated investors and how to concretely improve them. Weak Claim 1: Solution Slide "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Grok 4
Grok 4
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Qwen3.7 Flash costs 115x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Grok 4
Input
$3.00
Output
$15.00
Qwen3.7 Flash
Input
$0.03
100× cheaper
Output
$0.13
115× cheaper

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper on both: 100× input, 115× output.

Where to run it

1 host

Grok 4

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Qwen3.7 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.03 in·$0.13 out·1M·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Grok 4 is developed by xAI while Qwen3.7 Flash is developed by Qwen. Grok 4 has a 256K token context window vs Qwen3.7 Flash's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Grok 4 and Qwen3.7 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Grok 4 costs $3/M input tokens and Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03/M input tokens. Qwen3.7 Flash is $2.97/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Grok 4 and Qwen3.7 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Grok 4 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Grok 4 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoHy3 logo
Grok 4 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Grok 4 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Grok 4 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.7 Flash logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Grok 4 logoGrok 4.7 logo
Grok 4 vs Grok 4.7Same lab
Grok 4 logoGrok 4.6 logo
Grok 4 vs Grok 4.6Version compare
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.7 Flash logoQwen3.8 Max (0902) logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Same lab
Grok 4 logoInkling logo
Grok 4 vs InklingNew provider
Qwen3.7 Flash logoINTELLECT-3 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs INTELLECT-3Same size
Qwen3.7 Flash logoKimi K2 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Kimi K2New provider
Qwen3.7 Flash logoKimi K2 0905 logo
Qwen3.7 Flash vs Kimi K2 0905New provider

Model pages

Grok 4 logo
Grok 457 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.7 Flash13 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed