Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen2-72B
Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 42.5 to 28.7.
- Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.8 | 29.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2024-06-07 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 256K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Results tracked | 3 | 26 |
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), Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1196 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |
Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1191 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.27 |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1171 |
| MMLU | — | 82.4% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1240 |
| LMArena French | — | 1169 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1169 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1168 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1181 |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1193 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1195 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen2-72B?
Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen2-72B better for coding?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen2-72B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.