Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Qwen Turbo
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4 leads 48.4 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84% for Grok 4 and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
Side by side
| Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.1 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2025-07-09 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4: 50.3 (#46), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 79.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4: 32.3 (#68), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 27.2% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 21.1% | — |
| Cybench | 43% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.6% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.6% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Grok 4: 36.7 (#65), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 16% | — |
| SimpleBench | 60.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 66.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 28% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.44 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.9 | — |
Math Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 48.4 (#64), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84% | 6.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 60.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 19.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 53.8 (#55), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87% | 41.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 72.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1415 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4: 33.7 (#94), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1210 | — |
| GeoBench | 45% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4: 51.8 (#103), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena German | 1429 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1394 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1410 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4: 79.2 (#5), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 94.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1387 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 94.4% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4: 58.5 (#116), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1397 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.9% | — |
| WildBench | 79.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1416 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4 better than Qwen Turbo?
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Qwen Turbo share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.