Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-14B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B 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 33.6.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1113 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1125 |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1102 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.7 vs 33.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.