| Signal | Grok Code Fast 1 | Delta | Qwen 3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 71 | +71 | |
Context window size | 86 | +86 | |
Output Capacity | 67 | +67 | |
Pricing Tier | 2 | +2 | |
Recency | 98 | +98 | |
Versatility | 33 | +33 | |
| Overall Result | 6 wins | of 6 | 0 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
xAI
Alibaba
Pricing unavailable
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen 3.5 397B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 56 | 91 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Rank | #72 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Quality Rank | #72 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Adoption Rank | #72 | #8 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 256K | 131K | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Pricing | $0.20/$1.50/M | -- | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 71 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Context window size | 86 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Output Capacity | 67 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Pricing Tier | 2 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Recency | 98 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
| Versatility | 33 | -- | Grok Code Fast 1 |
Qwen 3.5 397B clearly outperforms Grok Code Fast 1 with a significant 35.1-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen 3.5 397B is the stronger choice. However, Grok Code Fast 1 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Grok Code Fast 1
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Reliability
Grok Code Fast 1
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Grok Code Fast 1
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Grok Code Fast 1
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by xAI
Qwen 3.5 397B currently scores higher (91 vs 56), but the best choice depends on your specific use case, budget, and requirements.
Grok Code Fast 1 is ranked #72 and Qwen 3.5 397B is ranked #7. Rankings are based on a composite score from multiple signals including benchmarks, community sentiment, and adoption metrics.
Pricing information may not be available for both models. Check individual model pages for the latest pricing details.