Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen1.5-14B

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.9

Rank #21 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 21.4.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.932.7
Released2026-08-122024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked4917

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Coding14651138
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1617—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
APEX-Agents65.3%—
GDP.pdf17.2%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14471113
ARC-AGI-267.1%—
SimpleBench75.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)80%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt19.7%—
Chess Puzzles40%—
EBR-Bench30.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.3%—
LMCA48.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.44—

Math Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Math14231125
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202599.2%—
ProofBench51%—

Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Expert14671094
GPQA Diamond94%—
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
MMLU—68.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen1.5-14B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Vision1263—
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Non-English14201095
LMArena Chinese14801147
LMArena French14611116
LMArena German14311043
LMArena Japanese13761019
LMArena Russian14221046
LMArena Spanish14041085
LMArena Korean1397—

Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14311102

Long Context Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Longer Query14541113

Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-14B
LMArena Text14281128
LMArena Creative Writing14281091
LMArena Multi-Turn14251110

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.6 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper