Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #25 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.5 leads 62.3 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 93.4% for Grok 4.5 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index55.030.5
Released2026-07-082024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked5221

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14741155
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.4%—
LMArena WebDev1553—
SciCode54.1%—
WeirdML46.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench1,309—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents56.2%—
τ²-bench Banking47.9%—
PostTrainBench23.4%—
GBAEval65.4%—
GDP.pdf14%—
LMArena Search1213—
Vending-Bench 23,887—

Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14621130
ARC-AGI-252.6%—
SimpleBench70%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.9%—
ARC-AGI-187.2%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles36%—
DTBench96.5%—
LMCA45.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench74.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.92—

Math Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14591155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench31%—

Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond93.4%30.7%
LMArena Expert14661126
SimpleQA Verified48.3%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1288—
Blueprint-Bench 227.3%—
Furniture Assembly22.5%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14401106
LMArena Chinese14961177
LMArena French14561101
LMArena German14461058
LMArena Japanese14281027
LMArena Korean14041008
LMArena Russian14481073
LMArena Spanish14501089

Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14461116

Long Context Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14631146

Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14481137
LMArena Creative Writing14421083
LMArena Multi-Turn14561140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1579—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper