Noometry

Model comparison

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) xAI

33.7

Rank #239 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 11.5% for Grok-2 (Dec 2024) and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.742.2
Released2024-08-132026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked3411

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 33.3 (#258), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
WeirdML22.2%—
LiveBench Coding46.4%—
LMArena Coding1287—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 16.9 (#299), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
DTBench65.2%78.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index130.48146.5
SimpleBench22.7%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LiveBench Reasoning54.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1272—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LiveBench Data Analysis54.5%—
LMCA—34.5%
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 20.8 (#284), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202511.5%91.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
LiveBench Math54.9%—
LMArena Math1283—
MATH Level 563.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)0.7%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 29.8 (#233), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond53.8%85.9%
Confabulations20.1%—
LMArena Expert1254—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 43.1 (#188), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1282—
LMArena Chinese1289—
LMArena French1318—
LMArena German1287—
LMArena Japanese1244—
LMArena Korean1237—
LMArena Russian1286—
LMArena Spanish1281—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 66.9 (#202), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following69.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1270—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 38.8 (#190), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1276—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 48.6 (#198), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1305—
LMArena Creative Writing1284—
Short-Story Creative Writing63.6%—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1290—
LiveBench Language45.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok-2 (Dec 2024) and Qwen3.6 27B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper