# Grok 4.1 vs Qwen2-72B

> Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-1-vs-qwen2-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.6 to 41.0.
- Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 29.5 |
| Rank | 135 | 294 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246)
- Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1196 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47)
- Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| Cybench | 39% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91)
- Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | 1191 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.27 |

## Math

- Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124)
- Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129)
- Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1171 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| MMLU | — | 82.4% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64)
- Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | 1240 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1169 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1169 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1168 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106)
- Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1181 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96)
- Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1193 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71)
- Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1195 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen2-72B?

Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen2-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.