Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen1.5-72B

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 33.1 to 11.5.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.430.8
Released2025-06-272024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3222

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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14111165
LMArena WebDev1242—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
ALE-Bench394.93—
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14071148
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
DTBench87.7%—
ForecastBench61—

Math Qwen1.5-72B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math14081164
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—

Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Expert13991136
GPQA Diamond—28.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English13911135
LMArena Chinese14411186
LMArena French14151159
LMArena German14041084
LMArena Japanese13491061
LMArena Korean13611050
LMArena Russian13871104
LMArena Spanish14131110

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following13761141

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query13901157

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14081166
LMArena Creative Writing13941137
LMArena Multi-Turn13891160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen1.5-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper