Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 30.0 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 Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.6 to 34.4.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | 1131 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1155 |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | 1176 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1100 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1007 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1089 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1116 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.