Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 Fast vs QwQ-32B

Grok 4 Fast and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.4 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 Fast xAI

39.4

Rank #167 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 Fast scores higher in 5 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 Fast leads 63.2 to 49.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 94.4% for Grok 4 Fast and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4 FastQwQ-32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.439.8
Released2025-09-192024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3036

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.5 (#271), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14291333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1159—
WeirdML42.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: 29.5 (#86), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
τ²-bench Banking15.7%—
Cybench30%—
LMArena Search1171—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 22.2 (#201), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14121325
Epoch Capabilities Index144.2137.6
ForecastBench60.558.3
ARC-AGI-25.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark66.1%—
ARC-AGI-148.5%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench82.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Grok 4 Fast: 38.9 (#123), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14191359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.0 (#214), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert14111324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate19.7%—

Multilingual Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 51.3 (#111), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13961305
LMArena Chinese14571378
LMArena French14311336
LMArena German13831313
LMArena Japanese13521262
LMArena Korean13571279
LMArena Russian13891297
LMArena Spanish14151354

Instruction Following Too close to call

Grok 4 Fast: 73.2 (#121), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13871297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%83.3%
LMArena Longer Query14151308

Writing & Preference Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 60.0 (#102), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14071329
LMArena Creative Writing13871288
LMArena Multi-Turn14141314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 Fast better than QwQ-32B?

Grok 4 Fast and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.4 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Grok 4 Fast or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and QwQ-32B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper