Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs QwQ-32B
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 6 categories and QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 50.6.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1325 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1324 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than QwQ-32B?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and QwQ-32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.