Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.9

Rank #21 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 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 4.6 leads 63.3 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 94% for Grok 4.6 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.930.5
Released2026-08-122024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked4921

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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14651155
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1617—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents65.3%—
GDP.pdf17.2%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14471130
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14231155
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond94%30.7%
LMArena Expert14671126
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1263—
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14201106
LMArena Chinese14801177
LMArena French14611101
LMArena German14311058
LMArena Japanese13761027
LMArena Korean13971008
LMArena Russian14221073
LMArena Spanish14041089

Instruction Following Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14311116

Long Context Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14541146

Writing & Preference Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14281137
LMArena Creative Writing14281083
LMArena Multi-Turn14251140

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.6 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper