Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 57.2 to 34.2.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.430.5
Released2025-06-272024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3221

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14111155
LMArena WebDev1242—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard69.6%—
τ²-bench Banking13.1%—
LMArena Search1171—
Vending-Bench 21,107—

Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14071130
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
DTBench87.7%—
ForecastBench61—

Math Qwen1.5-32B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14081155
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—

Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert13991126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13911106
LMArena Chinese14411177
LMArena French14151101
LMArena German14041058
LMArena Japanese13491027
LMArena Korean13611008
LMArena Russian13871073
LMArena Spanish14131089

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13761116

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13901146

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14081137
LMArena Creative Writing13941083
LMArena Multi-Turn13891140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper