Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs QwQ-32B

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 43.4 to 23.7.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.439.8
Released2025-06-272024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3236

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14111333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1242—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
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), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14071325
ForecastBench6158.3
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench87.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14081359
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
ProofBench4%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert13991324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13911305
LMArena Chinese14411378
LMArena French14151336
LMArena German14041313
LMArena Japanese13491262
LMArena Korean13611279
LMArena Russian13871297
LMArena Spanish14131354

Instruction Following Too close to call

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13761297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query13901308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14081329
LMArena Creative Writing13941288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing13271257
LMArena Multi-Turn13891314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than QwQ-32B?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and QwQ-32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper