Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen3 14B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 leads 29.5 to 18.5.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | — |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena German | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen3 14B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen3 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.