Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Qwen3.5-9B

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 xAI

48.1

Rank #56 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4 leads 32.3 to 14.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84% for Grok 4 and 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4Qwen3.5-9B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.133.8
Released2025-07-092026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.15
Results tracked4810

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 50.3 (#46), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
Aider Polyglot79.6%—
SciCode—27.5%
WeirdML45.7%—
LMArena Coding1408—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 32.3 (#68), Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench27.2%9.2%
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), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
Chess Puzzles28%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.44139.46
ARC-AGI-216%—
SimpleBench60.5%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.6%—
ARC-AGI-166.7%—
CritPt—0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1409—
DTBench—71.2%
LMCA—24.5%
ForecastBench60.9—

Math Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 48.4 (#64), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584%61.7%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—48.5%
Omni-MATH60.3%—
LMArena Math1422—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)19.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 53.8 (#55), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond87%79%
MMLU-Pro85.1%—
Confabulations12.4%—
GPQA (HELM)72.7%—
LMArena Expert1415—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4: 33.7 (#94), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Vision1210—
GeoBench45%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4: 51.8 (#103), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Non-English1403—
LMArena Chinese1427—
LMArena French1418—
LMArena German1429—
LMArena Japanese1394—
LMArena Korean1377—
LMArena Russian1410—
LMArena Spanish1420—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4: 79.2 (#5), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
IFEval94.9%—
LMArena Instruction Following1387—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—
LMArena Longer Query1409—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4: 58.5 (#116), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1411—
LMArena Creative Writing1397—
Short-Story Creative Writing76.9%—
WildBench79.7%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1416—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 better than Qwen3.5-9B?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Qwen3.5-9B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper