Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 57.9.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1403 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1374 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.7 vs 34.2); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.