Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3 32B

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #22 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.5 leads 56.0 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 36% for Grok 4.5 and 5% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
  • Grok 4.5 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.5Qwen3 32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index55.038.8
Released2026-07-082025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K131K
Max output500K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$6$2.80
Results tracked5226

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
SciCode54.1%35.4%
LMArena Coding14731358
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.4%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1552—
WeirdML46.4%—
ALE-Bench1,309—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#15), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
APEX-Agents56.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
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), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.5%54.9%
CritPt15.4%0.3%
Chess Puzzles36%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14621335
DTBench96.5%67.5%
LMCA45.2%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index154.02138.51
ARC-AGI-252.6%—
SimpleBench70%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.9%—
ARC-AGI-187.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench74.4%—

Math Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 60.7 (#29), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%66.9%
LMArena Math14571399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
ProofBench31%—

Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#21), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond93.4%65.7%
LMArena Expert14661362
SimpleQA Verified48.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 37.8 (#63), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1287—
Blueprint-Bench 227.3%—
Furniture Assembly22.5%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 54.5 (#43), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14391317
LMArena Chinese14971357
LMArena German14481341
LMArena Russian14471311
LMArena French1458—
LMArena Japanese1425—
LMArena Korean1402—
LMArena Spanish1452—

Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 76.3 (#45), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14461305

Long Context Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#54), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14631327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 65.9 (#40), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text14481340
LMArena Creative Writing14421297
LMArena Multi-Turn14571331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1579—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen3 32B?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.

Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.7 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.5 does, with 500K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen3 32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper