Model comparison

Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 2 shared benchmarks.

Grok Build 0.1 xAI

35.8

Rank #214 Reported

Qwen3 32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok Build 0.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 31.3 to 19.6.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for Grok Build 0.1 and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
Both cost about the same: $1 input and $2 output per million tokens.
Grok Build 0.1 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3 32B specifications
	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
Provider	xAI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	35.8	38.8
Released	2026-04-16	2025-04
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	256K	131K
Max output	256K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$1	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$2	$2.80
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), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
SciCode	50.2%	35.4%
Aider Polyglot	—	40%
LMArena Coding	—	1358

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	48.7%
GBAEval	2.4%	—

Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads

Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
CritPt	9.1%	0.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	54.9%
Chess Puzzles	—	5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1335
DTBench	—	67.5%
LMCA	—	17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.51

Math Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.9%
LMArena Math	—	1399

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond	—	65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.9%
LMArena Expert	—	1362

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	—	1317
LMArena Chinese	—	1357
LMArena German	—	1341
LMArena Russian	—	1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1305

Long Context Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	74.2%
LMArena Longer Query	—	1327

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	—	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1297
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1331

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Grok Build 0.1 lists at $1 and $2.

Is Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok Build 0.1 does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3 32B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.