Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs QwQ-32B

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #25 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.5 leads 56.1 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Grok 4.5 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.5QwQ-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index55.039.8
Released2026-07-082024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked5236

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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14741333
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.4%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1553—
SciCode54.1%—
WeirdML46.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench1,309—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-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), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles36%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14621325
Epoch Capabilities Index153.92137.6
ARC-AGI-252.6%—
SimpleBench70%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.9%—
ARC-AGI-187.2%—
CritPt15.4%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench96.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA45.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench74.4%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%59.2%
LMArena Math14591359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
ProofBench31%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond93.4%65.3%
LMArena Expert14661324
SimpleQA Verified48.3%—
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), QwQ-32B: —

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

Multilingual Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14401305
LMArena Chinese14961378
LMArena French14561336
LMArena German14461313
LMArena Japanese14281262
LMArena Korean14041279
LMArena Russian14481297
LMArena Spanish14501354

Instruction Following Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14461297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14631308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads

Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGrok 4.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Text14481329
LMArena Creative Writing14421288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing15791257
LMArena Multi-Turn14561314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.5 better than QwQ-32B?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.5 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and QwQ-32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper