# Grok 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-1-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 34.2.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 134 | 293 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1130 |

## Math

- Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1155 |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1140 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.