Grok 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Recommended Workload Routing

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Grok 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Grok 4.6 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,592). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Grok 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Grok 4.6 leads SWE-bench at 69.1% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $6/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Grok 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the lower time-to-first-token (180 ms vs 195 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Grok 4.6 accepts 500k tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Grok 4.6 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.