Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.8

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 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 4.6 leads 63.3 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 94% for Grok 4.6 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.830.0
Released2026-08-122024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked4921

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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14641155
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1620—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#25), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents65.3%—
GDP.pdf17.2%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 61.3 (#18), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14451131
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14161155
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond94%30.7%
LMArena Expert14631126
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 43.9 (#18), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1265—
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 53.3 (#67), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14221106
LMArena Chinese14791176
LMArena French14581100
LMArena German14251058
LMArena Japanese13831027
LMArena Korean13951007
LMArena Russian14271073
LMArena Spanish14081089

Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 75.6 (#59), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14311116

Long Context Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 44.4 (#62), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14531146

Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 62.5 (#77), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14271137
LMArena Creative Writing14301083
LMArena Multi-Turn14221140

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.6 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper