Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 xAI

48.1

Rank #56 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 33.7.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.132.7
Released2025-07-092024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4817

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 50.3 (#46), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14081138
Aider Polyglot79.6%—
WeirdML45.7%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4: 32.3 (#68), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
Terminal-Bench27.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard63%—
GDPval21.1%—
Cybench43%—
DeepResearch Bench47.3%—
BALROG43.6%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons66.6%—

Reasoning Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 36.7 (#65), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14091113
ARC-AGI-216%—
SimpleBench60.5%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.6%—
ARC-AGI-166.7%—
Chess Puzzles28%—
Epoch Capabilities Index146.44—
ForecastBench60.9—

Math Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 48.4 (#64), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14221125
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584%—
Omni-MATH60.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)19.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 53.8 (#55), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14151094
GPQA Diamond87%—
MMLU-Pro85.1%—
Confabulations12.4%—
GPQA (HELM)72.7%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4: 33.7 (#94), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1210—
GeoBench45%—

Multilingual Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 51.8 (#103), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14031095
LMArena Chinese14271147
LMArena French14181116
LMArena German14291043
LMArena Japanese13941019
LMArena Russian14101046
LMArena Spanish14201085
LMArena Korean1377—

Instruction Following Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 79.2 (#5), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following13871102
IFEval94.9%—

Long Context Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14091113
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 58.5 (#116), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14111128
LMArena Creative Writing13971091
LMArena Multi-Turn14161110
Short-Story Creative Writing76.9%—
WildBench79.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper