Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5-Max

Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.4 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 43.4 to 25.6.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.440.7
Released2025-06-272025-01-25
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3227

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding14111359
LMArena WebDev1242—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
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), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14071360
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
DTBench87.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—132.53
ForecastBench61—
LiveBench—62.3%

Math Qwen2.5-Max leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math14081369
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—
LiveBench Math—58.4%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert13991337
Confabulations—21.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen2.5-Max: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English13911352
LMArena Chinese14411382
LMArena French14151396
LMArena German14041350
LMArena Japanese13491300
LMArena Korean13611304
LMArena Russian13871353
LMArena Spanish14131377

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following13761335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query13901358

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text14081367
LMArena Creative Writing13941339
LMArena Multi-Turn13891364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.4 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5-Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper