Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.5 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.9 to 33.7.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | 1358 |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1427 |
| WeirdML | — | 39.5% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1414 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1429 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1428 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1241 |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1407 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1393 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1410 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.5 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.