Model comparison
Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 24.8.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2025-06-27 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 30K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 32 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1411 | 1314 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1241 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 394.93 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1407 | 1299 |
| SimpleBench | 56% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 87.4% | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1408 | 1298 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 60.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1398 | 1289 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 17.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1201 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1391 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1441 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1404 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1347 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1361 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1376 | 1275 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1390 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads
Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 Fast | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1408 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1394 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1327 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.