Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent vs QwQ-32B

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent xAI

45.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 42.4 to 22.9.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.539.4
Released2026-03-092024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$2.50—
Results tracked2036

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#91), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14581333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —, QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Search1204—

Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14481326
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14411359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert14451323
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14401306
LMArena Chinese14751378
LMArena French14671337
LMArena German14561313
LMArena Japanese14051263
LMArena Korean14161278
LMArena Russian14571297
LMArena Spanish14471353

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14201297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14301308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14501329
LMArena Creative Writing14351288
LMArena Multi-Turn14511314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better than QwQ-32B?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent and QwQ-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper