Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen2-72B

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #300 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 43.4 to 23.2.
  • Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.430.0
Released2025-06-272024-06-07
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3226

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: 34.1 (#245), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Coding14111196
LMArena WebDev1242—
WeirdML—11.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
BigCodeBench Complete—54%
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard69.6%—
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
τ²-bench Banking13.1%—
LMArena Search1171—
METR Time Horizons—29.9%
Vending-Bench 21,107—

Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14071191
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
DTBench87.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.28
ForecastBench61—

Math Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Math14081235
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Expert13991171
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—
MMLU—82.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Qwen2-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English13911176
LMArena Chinese14411240
LMArena French14151170
LMArena German14041151
LMArena Japanese13491111
LMArena Korean13611083
LMArena Russian13871169
LMArena Spanish14131169

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following13761181

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query13901192

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen2-72B
LMArena Text14081203
LMArena Creative Writing13941181
LMArena Multi-Turn13891196
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen2-72B?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen2-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper