Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Qwen Max
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 25.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 92.2% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper at $1.25 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 34.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 30K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1269 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1275 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1248 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1290 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1262 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1277 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Qwen Max?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Qwen Max?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Qwen Max better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Qwen Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.