LLMs & Assistants

Grok vs Qwen.

Both sit in LLMs & Assistants, scored on the same six pillars from the same published methodology. Here is where they actually differ.

The short answer

Too close to call on score alone — Grok sits at 82.7 and Qwen at 84.1. A gap that size is inside the noise of any honest scoring model, so pick on fit rather than rank.

Grok leads on security & compliance; Qwen leads on integrations & ecosystem, value for money and maturity & reliability.

Grok

xAI

82.7

Excellent

Real-time assistant wired directly into X, with a candid personality.

From
Free / $30 per month (SuperGrok)
Pricing
Freemium
Maturity
Emerging
Founded
2023
Qwen

Alibaba Cloud

84.1

Excellent

Alibaba's open-weight LLM family, strong on code, math, and agentic tasks

From
Free (open-weight, self-hosted) / API from ~$0.05 per 1M input tokens
Pricing
Freemium
Maturity
Established
Founded
2023

Pillar by pillar

The same six pillars and fixed weights used for every tool on the site. A lead of fewer than 5 points is not called for either side — these are evidence-backed judgements, not measurements. Read the methodology.

Capability

Level

Grok89
Qwen87

Value for Money

Qwen by 7

Grok85
Qwen92

Security & Compliance

Grok by 6

Grok74
Qwen68

Integrations & Ecosystem

Qwen by 11

Grok74
Qwen85

Maturity & Reliability

Qwen by 6

Grok72
Qwen78

Momentum

Level

Grok92
Qwen90

Which one, and when

Pick Grok if

  • compliance and data control decide it — it leads Security & Compliance by 6 points.
  • Real-time social research
  • Teams already living on X
  • Cost-efficient agentic coding

The catch

  • Enterprise security and compliance story is younger than rivals
  • Personality tuning has drawn scrutiny over output controls
Full Grok profile →

Pick Qwen if

  • it has to fit the stack you already run — it leads Integrations & Ecosystem by 11 points.
  • cost per unit of output is the binding constraint — it leads Value for Money by 7 points.
  • it has to hold up in production from day one — it leads Maturity & Reliability by 6 points.
  • Developers wanting low-cost, self-hostable open-weight LLMs for coding and agentic workflows
  • Enterprises needing multilingual, multimodal models via a single unified API
  • Cost-sensitive production deployments seeking frontier-adjacent performance at a fraction of Western model pricing

The catch

  • Newer flagship tiers (Qwen3.6/3.7-Max) have shifted to closed weights, limiting self-hosting for the most capable models
  • Some large models use the more restrictive Tongyi Qianwen License rather than Apache 2.0, with commercial caps tied to MAU thresholds
Full Qwen profile →

What each is good at

Grok

  • Live access to X gives it a real-time edge on news and sentiment
  • Fast-improving reasoning and coding across recent model releases
  • Generous context and image understanding on paid tiers

Qwen

  • Aggressive price-to-performance with open-weight Apache 2.0 models that can be self-hosted at zero per-token cost
  • Strong, frequently-updated coding and agentic performance, including high SWE-bench Verified scores
  • Broad model catalogue spanning text, vision, audio, coding and embeddings under one API

Other comparisons in LLMs & Assistants

Comparing something else? Build your own side-by-side across any tools in the catalog.