Model comparison
Grok 4 Fast vs Qwen1.5-32B
Grok 4 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 Fast scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 Fast leads 63.2 to 34.7.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2025-09-19 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 30 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4 Fast: 32.5 (#271), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1429 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1159 | — |
| WeirdML | 42.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 29.5 (#86), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 15.7% | — |
| Cybench | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Grok 4 Fast: 22.2 (#201), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1412 | 1130 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 66.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 48.5% | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.2 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.5 | — |
Math Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 38.9 (#123), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1419 | 1155 |
Knowledge Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 32.0 (#214), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1411 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 19.7% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 51.3 (#111), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1396 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1457 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1383 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1352 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1357 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1389 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1415 | 1089 |
Instruction Following Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 73.2 (#121), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1387 | 1116 |
Long Context Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1415 | 1146 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 94.4% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4 Fast leads
Grok 4 Fast: 60.0 (#102), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1407 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1414 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4 Fast better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Grok 4 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4 Fast or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (32.5 vs 31.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and Qwen1.5-32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.