Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen1.5-72B

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #22 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.5 leads 62.3 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 93.4% for Grok 4.5 and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index55.030.3
Released2026-07-082024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked5222

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 51.7 (#34), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14731166
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.4%—
LMArena WebDev1552—
SciCode54.1%—
WeirdML46.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
ALE-Bench1,309—
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#15), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
APEX-Agents56.2%—
τ²-bench Banking47.9%—
PostTrainBench23.4%—
GBAEval65.4%—
GDP.pdf14%—
LMArena Search1213—
Vending-Bench 23,887—

Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 56.0 (#23), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14621148
ARC-AGI-252.6%—
SimpleBench70%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.9%—
ARC-AGI-187.2%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles36%—
DTBench96.5%—
LMCA45.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench74.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.02—

Math Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 60.7 (#29), Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math14571164
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench31%—

Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#21), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond93.4%28.8%
LMArena Expert14661136
SimpleQA Verified48.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 37.8 (#63), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1287—
Blueprint-Bench 227.3%—
Furniture Assembly22.5%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 54.5 (#43), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English14391135
LMArena Chinese14971186
LMArena French14581158
LMArena German14481084
LMArena Japanese14251061
LMArena Korean14021049
LMArena Russian14471104
LMArena Spanish14521110

Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 76.3 (#45), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following14461142

Long Context Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#54), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query14631157

Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 65.9 (#40), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14481166
LMArena Creative Writing14421137
LMArena Multi-Turn14571160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1579—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.7 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper