Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.1 leads 36.2 to 15.3.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | — |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena German | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.