Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen-14B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 27.6.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena German | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1031 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen-14B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.7 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.