# Grok 4.1 vs Qwen-14B

> Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-1-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.6 to 27.8.
- Qwen-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 135 | 273 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246)
- Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1072 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91)
- Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 112.8 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124)
- Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64)
- Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena German | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106)
- Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1029 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71)
- Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1022 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen-14B?

Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen-14B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.