Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Qwen1.5-72B

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 xAI

47.8

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4 leads 53.7 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 87% for Grok 4 and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4Qwen1.5-72B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index47.830.3
Released2025-07-092024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4822

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 49.9 (#44), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14081166
Aider Polyglot79.6%—
WeirdML45.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4: 32.1 (#62), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
Terminal-Bench27.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard63%—
GDPval21.1%—
Cybench43%—
DeepResearch Bench47.3%—
BALROG43.6%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons66.6%—

Reasoning Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 36.9 (#59), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14091148
ARC-AGI-216%—
SimpleBench60.5%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.6%—
ARC-AGI-166.7%—
Chess Puzzles28%—
Epoch Capabilities Index146.46—
ForecastBench60.9—

Math Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 46.5 (#58), Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math14221164
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584%—
Omni-MATH60.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)19.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 53.7 (#50), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond87%28.8%
LMArena Expert14171136
MMLU-Pro85.1%—
Confabulations12.4%—
GPQA (HELM)72.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4: 33.1 (#89), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1211—
GeoBench45%—

Multilingual Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 52.0 (#98), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English14031135
LMArena Chinese14281186
LMArena French14181158
LMArena German14291084
LMArena Japanese13961061
LMArena Korean13761049
LMArena Russian14091104
LMArena Spanish14191110

Instruction Following Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 79.4 (#4), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following13871142
IFEval94.9%—

Long Context Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query14091157
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 58.7 (#111), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)

BenchmarkGrok 4Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14121166
LMArena Creative Writing13971137
LMArena Multi-Turn14161160
Short-Story Creative Writing76.9%—
WildBench79.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.9 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper