Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max (high)
Should you write with Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max (high)? On this page the only thing that changes is the model. Both wrote their own version of the scripts behind 10 of my What's AI videos, five drafts per script, and three judges from three model families scored every draft blind, with my finished script as the reference. Grok 4.5 leads overall, 81.9 to 80.8.
The verdict
Neither of these is near the top of the board, and between them Grok 4.5 is the one I'd use. It ranks #76 against #89 for Qwen3.7 Max (high), and while the overall gap is small, the Elo ranges just clear each other, so the order is firmer than it looks. The biggest difference is substance, almost five points, the metric for whether a script actually teaches anything. Grok also wins on voice and the Slop Score. Qwen scores better on the hook and misses length by less, and it's a touch cheaper at $0.055 per script against $0.063. That price difference is small enough that I'd ignore it.
Pick Grok 4.5 for more substance and a better voice match.
Pick Qwen3.7 Max (high) when a stronger opening and tighter length matter more than depth.
How to read these numbers
Overall vs Elo. Overall is the weighted rubric score. Elo compares each model's five-draft average with every other model's, script by script, and counts gaps inside run-to-run noise as draws, so it rewards winning often and can disagree with overall. My own scripts score 90.9 on the same rubric, not a literal 100. Right now 2 of 167 ranked configurations reach it. A model above that line writes at that level on this rubric. That's not the same as beating my script line for line.
Reading the Elo intervals. Each 95% range comes from resampling every model's recorded run scores on each task and re-ranking. Comparing these separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between two models: far apart is strong evidence, and overlap isn't a tie. The tasks stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new tasks (the long version).
Metric by metric: where the gap comes from
Blue is Grok 4.5, orange is Qwen3.7 Max (high), and the solid bar takes the metric. The weight under each name is how much it counts toward the overall. Weighted by how much each metric counts, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put Grok 4.5 ahead: it leads there by 4.7 points. If you care about one thing, say voice or length, go straight to that row.
Cost, speed, and consistency
Quality is half the decision. The other half is what each script costs you, how long you wait, and how often you get a bad draft. They cost about the same per script.
| Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.7 Max (high) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 81.9 | 80.8 |
| Writing Elo | 1618 | 1525 |
| Score spread across drafts (± overall std) | 2.950 | 2.190 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.063 | 0.055 |
| Avg time per script (min) | 0.9 | 1.7 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Green wins the row, and for spread, cost and time, lower wins. Cost is one script at recorded list prices, uncached and without judging, so your real bill will differ. Spread is how much the overall score moves across a model's drafts, and time is the average time to get one accepted script, retries included.
Want the script-by-script detail? Full scorecards: Grok 4.5 · Qwen3.7 Max (high). The whole scoring pipeline is on the methodology page.
← All comparisons