Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.3 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.3 xAI

43.6

Rank #80 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.3 leads 52.5 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 88.8% for Grok 4.3 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.630.0
Released2026-04-172024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$2.50—
Results tracked4021

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 41.3 (#117), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14151155
LMArena WebDev1357—
SciCode47.3%—
WeirdML49.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench944.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 27.6 (#93), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
GDP.pdf8%—
LMArena Search1165—
Vending-Bench 235.26—

Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 34.9 (#60), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13971131
NYT Connections (extended)55.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles25%—
DTBench90.7%—
LMCA38.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.13—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 45.8 (#60), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13881155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)42.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 414.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench11%—

Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#57), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond88.8%30.7%
LMArena Expert13851126
SimpleQA Verified33.2%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#96), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1231—
Blueprint-Bench 20%—

Multilingual Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 50.7 (#114), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13851106
LMArena Chinese14231176
LMArena French14121100
LMArena German13951058
LMArena Japanese13791027
LMArena Korean13571007
LMArena Russian13991073
LMArena Spanish14021089

Instruction Following Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 72.3 (#135), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13661116

Long Context Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#118), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13931146

Writing & Preference Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 58.6 (#112), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13971137
LMArena Creative Writing13801083
LMArena Multi-Turn14061140
EQ-Bench 41075—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.3 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper