Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen Max
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.1 leads 38.9 to 22.3.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 34.7 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 23 |
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 Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1269 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1275 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 16.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1290 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1262 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1277 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen Max?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen Max better for coding?
Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.7 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.