Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 Fast vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Grok 4 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 Fast xAI

39.0

Rank #164 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 Fast scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 Fast leads 63.2 to 37.9.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.032.9
Released2025-09-192024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked3031

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.3 (#264), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14291276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1160—
WeirdML42.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 29.3 (#80), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
τ²-bench Banking15.7%—
Cybench30%—
LMArena Search1171—

Reasoning Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 22.5 (#179), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14131251
Epoch Capabilities Index144.21119.41
ARC-AGI-25.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark66.1%—
ARC-AGI-148.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
DTBench82.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
ForecastBench60.5—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 36.1 (#126), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14191251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 31.5 (#211), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14111221
Vectara Hallucination Rate19.7%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 51.5 (#106), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English13971205
LMArena Chinese14581222
LMArena Russian13871228
LMArena French1433—
LMArena German1383—
LMArena Japanese1358—
LMArena Korean1359—
LMArena Spanish1414—

Instruction Following Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 73.4 (#116), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13881223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14151251
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 60.2 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14071230
LMArena Creative Writing13881174
LMArena Multi-Turn14141222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 Fast better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Grok 4 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 Fast or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Grok 4 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.3 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper