Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.8 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 33.9.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2 for Grok Build 0.1.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.8 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1M |
| Max output | 256K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1404 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1408 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1446 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1399 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1374 |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.8 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok Build 0.1 lists at $1 and $2.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.