Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 21.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 87.7% for Grok 4.1 Fast and 62.9% for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $5.60 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 31.5 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 30K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $5.60 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 43 |
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: 33.8 (#236), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 32.8 (#256)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | 1293 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1241 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 16% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 55.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.0 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 69.6% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | — | 5.7% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.1% | — |
| BALROG | — | 16.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 35.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,107 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 21.4 (#197)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | 1271 |
| DTBench | 87.7% | 62.9% |
| ForecastBench | 61 | 57.5 |
| SimpleBench | 56% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | — |
| LMCA | — | 13.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 79.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129.01 |
| HellaSwag | — | 84.8% |
| PIQA | — | 82.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 82.3% |
Math Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 18.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1408 | 1283 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 33% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.2% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 26.9 (#247)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1398 | 1245 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 49.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 63.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 19.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 94.5% |
| MMLU | — | 85.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 71.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.2 (#208)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1272 |
| LMArena French | 1416 | 1279 |
| LMArena German | 1404 | 1234 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1347 | 1180 |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | 1188 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1264 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | 1255 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.7 (#216)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | 1254 |
| IFEval | — | 80.6% |
Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#183)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | 1282 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | 1269 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | 1221 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1272 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
| WildBench | — | 80.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 72B 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 72B Instruct lists at $1.40 and $5.60.
Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?
Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 32.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.