Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-110B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 33.6 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 Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.6 to 38.1.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1184 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1185 |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1144 |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | 1206 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1150 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1141 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1158 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.4 vs 32.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen1.5-110B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.