Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 39.5.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.