Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Qwen3-1.7B

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Qwen3-1.7B Alibaba (Qwen)

26.6

Rank #336 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.8 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 92.2% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.
  • Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.626.6
Released2026-02-172025-04-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$2.50—
Results tracked464

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena WebDev1375—
WeirdML52.3%—
LMArena Coding1459—
ALE-Bench1,150—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
Terminal-Bench57.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.4%
τ²-bench Banking18%—
LMArena Search1189—
Vending-Bench 24,663—

Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
Chess Puzzles24%0%
ARC-AGI-265.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
NYT Connections (extended)85.4%—
ARC-AGI-189.5%—
Thematic Generalization63.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1451—
DTBench90.1%—
LMCA38.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.98—
ForecastBench61.4—

Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202592.2%8.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)44.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench14%—
LMArena Math1455—

Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
GPQA Diamond89.3%38%
SimpleQA Verified30.2%—
LMArena Expert1439—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Vision1263—
Blueprint-Bench 20%—
LMArena Document1416—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Non-English1441—
LMArena Chinese1481—
LMArena French1476—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1449—
LMArena Korean1417—
LMArena Russian1458—
LMArena Spanish1443—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Instruction Following1420—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
CL-bench22.2%—
CL-bench Life11.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1437—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Text1451—
LMArena Creative Writing1438—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1574—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Qwen3-1.7B?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Qwen3-1.7B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper