Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 20.4.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Grok 4.1 Fast accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 32.9 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 33K |
| Max output | 30K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 31 |
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-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1241 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | 1251 |
| SimpleBench | 56% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.41 |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1408 | 1251 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1398 | 1221 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1416 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.
Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.1 Fast does, with 128K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.