Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

40.9

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

28.6

Rank #314 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 14.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 87.7% for Grok 4.1 Fast and 47.7% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.928.6
Released2025-06-272024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output30K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.20$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$0.70
Results tracked3215

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena WebDev1241—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1411—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard69.6%—
τ²-bench Banking13.1%—
BALROG—7.8%
LMArena Search1171—
Vending-Bench 21,107—

Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
DTBench87.7%47.7%
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1407—
LMCA—6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.44
ForecastBench61—

Math Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—2.5%
ProofBench4%—
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1408—

Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—35.5%
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1398—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1391—
LMArena Chinese1441—
LMArena French1416—
LMArena German1404—
LMArena Japanese1347—
LMArena Korean1361—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1411—

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1376—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1390—

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1408—
LMArena Creative Writing1394—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—
WildBench—73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn1389—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 7B 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 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper