Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

40.9

Rank #131 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.4

Rank #176 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 28.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 56% for Grok 4.1 Fast and 35.2% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.938.4
Released2025-06-272026-04-27
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output30K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.20$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$1.13
Results tracked3213

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench394.93326.4
LMArena WebDev1241—
LMArena Coding1411—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
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: 42.3 (#45), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench56%35.2%
DTBench87.7%77.1%
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1407—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
LMCA—31%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26
ForecastBench61—

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
ProofBench4%—
LMArena Math1408—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—
LMArena Expert1398—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1391—
LMArena Chinese1441—
LMArena French1416—
LMArena German1404—
LMArena Japanese1347—
LMArena Korean1361—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1411—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1376—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1390—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1408—
LMArena Creative Writing1394—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—
LMArena Multi-Turn1389—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper