Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 18.5.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 30K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1241 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 69.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,107 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 56% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1408 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1398 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | — |
| LMArena French | 1416 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.