Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Qwen3 14B
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.2 to 18.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 90.1% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 64% for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 30K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 12 |
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): 41.8 (#104), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1374 | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1458 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | 49.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | 4% |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 64% |
| LMCA | 38.7% | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.01 | 138.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | 66.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | 63.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | — |
| LMArena French | 1477 | — |
| LMArena German | 1463 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1457 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Qwen3 14B?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Qwen3 14B share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.