ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 75 to 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. xAI

    Grok 4.6

    Released Aug 12, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI156.6
    • Price$2.00 / $6.00
    • Context500K
    Full specs Remove Grok 4.6
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    75/100
    • ECI144.0
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Grok 4.6 (65). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. Grok 4.6 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGrok 4.6Capabilities Index (ECI): Grok 4.6 156.6 · Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · Grok 4.6 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Grok 4.6 500,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 FlashGrok 4.6: Text, Images · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGrok 4.6Qwen3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8671
Price25%2786
Inputs & features15%7080
Context window10%4860
Overall100%65/10075/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationGrok 4.6xAIQwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)156.6 (best)144.0
ECI rank#19 of 148 (best)#82 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions94.0% (best)82.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics66.0% (best)18.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics99.2% (best)84.4%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions49.3% (best)20.3%
Price per million tokens
Input$2.00$0.10 (best)
Output$6.00$0.40 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.01 (best)
Blended (3:1)$3.00$0.175 (best)
Long-context rateOver 200K: $4.00 / $12.00Same rate
Price sourceOfficial xAI APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window500,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output500,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhighYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDgrok-4.6qwen3.5-flash
API providers29 (best)8
ReleasedAug 12, 2026Feb 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoffFeb 1, 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Grok 4.6$32.00
  • Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Grok 4.6 (65). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. Grok 4.6 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Grok 4.6 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official xAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $3.00 for Grok 4.6 (17× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Grok 4.6 156.6 (#19 of 148) and Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0 (#82 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (154.7–158.9 vs 141.6–145.5), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Grok 4.6 94.0%, Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Grok 4.6 66.0%, Qwen3.5 Flash 18.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Grok 4.6 99.2%, Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%; SimpleQA Verified — Grok 4.6 49.3%, Qwen3.5 Flash 20.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Grok 4.6 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 500,000 for Grok 4.6. Maximum output per response: Grok 4.6 up to 500,000, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Grok 4.6 accepts text and images; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.5 Flash are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Grok 4.6 is the newest, released Aug 12, 2026. Qwen3.5 Flash came out Feb 23, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Grok 4.6 Feb 1, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons