Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 35.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 31.3 to 24.6.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.8 | 40.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 256K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Results tracked | 3 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 42.5 (#90), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1335 |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 35.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 41.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen2.5-Max share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.