Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.8

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.1

Rank #250 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.3 to 20.5.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.832.1
Released2026-08-122024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked4917

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 58.0 (#14), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14641138
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1620—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#25), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
APEX-Agents65.3%—
GDP.pdf17.2%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 61.3 (#18), Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14451113
ARC-AGI-267.1%—
SimpleBench75.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)80%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt19.7%—
Chess Puzzles40%—
EBR-Bench30.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.3%—
LMCA48.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.48—

Math Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 66.8 (#19), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14161125
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202599.2%—
ProofBench51%—

Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#18), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14631094
GPQA Diamond94%—
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 43.9 (#18), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1265—
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 53.3 (#67), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14221095
LMArena Chinese14791147
LMArena French14581115
LMArena German14251043
LMArena Japanese13831019
LMArena Russian14271046
LMArena Spanish14081085
LMArena Korean1395—

Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 75.6 (#59), Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14311102

Long Context Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 44.4 (#62), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14531113

Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 62.5 (#77), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14271128
LMArena Creative Writing14301091
LMArena Multi-Turn14221110

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.6 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper