Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 xAI

48.1

Rank #56 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 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 leads 53.8 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 87% for Grok 4 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.130.5
Released2025-07-092024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4821

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 50.3 (#46), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14081155
Aider Polyglot79.6%—
WeirdML45.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4: 32.3 (#68), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14091130
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14221155
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond87%30.7%
LMArena Expert14151126
MMLU-Pro85.1%—
Confabulations12.4%—
GPQA (HELM)72.7%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4: 33.7 (#94), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1210—
GeoBench45%—

Multilingual Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 51.8 (#103), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14031106
LMArena Chinese14271177
LMArena French14181101
LMArena German14291058
LMArena Japanese13941027
LMArena Korean13771008
LMArena Russian14101073
LMArena Spanish14201089

Instruction Following Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 79.2 (#5), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13871116
IFEval94.9%—

Long Context Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14091146
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 58.5 (#116), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14111137
LMArena Creative Writing13971083
LMArena Multi-Turn14161140
Short-Story Creative Writing76.9%—
WildBench79.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper