Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-72B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 30.8 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 Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.1 leads 39.5 to 11.5.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 22 |
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1165 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen1.5-72B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1148 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1164 |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1110 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1141 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.7 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen1.5-72B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.