Model comparison

Grok 4 Fast vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Grok 4 Fast has enough public results to be ranked (#164); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 Fast xAI

39.0

Rank #164 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.1 to 32.3.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4 Fast and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct specifications
Grok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.038.2
Released2025-09-192024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.35
Output $ / M tokens—$1.40
Results tracked303

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.3 (#264), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena WebDev1160—
WeirdML42.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.8%
LMArena Coding1429—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 29.3 (#80), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
τ²-bench Banking15.7%—
Cybench30%—
LMArena Search1171—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 22.5 (#179), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ARC-AGI-25.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark66.1%—
ARC-AGI-148.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1413—
DTBench82.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index144.21—
ForecastBench60.5—

Math Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 36.1 (#126), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Math1419—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 31.5 (#211), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
Vectara Hallucination Rate19.7%—
LMArena Expert1411—
MMLU—79.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 51.5 (#106), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1397—
LMArena Chinese1458—
LMArena French1433—
LMArena German1383—
LMArena Japanese1358—
LMArena Korean1359—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1414—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 73.4 (#116), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1388—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—
LMArena Longer Query1415—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 60.2 (#96), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1407—
LMArena Creative Writing1388—
LMArena Multi-Turn1414—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 Fast better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Grok 4 Fast has enough public results to be ranked (#164); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Grok 4 Fast or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper