| Signal | Grok 4 Fast | Delta | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | +50 | |
Benchmarks | 70 | +41 | |
Pricing | 1 | 0 | |
Context window size | 100 | +19 | |
Recency | 99 | +36 | |
Output Capacity | 75 | -11 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
30
days ranked higher
0
days
0
days ranked higher
xAI
Alibaba
QwQ 32B saves you $1.00/month
That's $12.00/year compared to Grok 4 Fast at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Grok 4 Fast | QwQ 32B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 83 | 47 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Rank | #52 | #270 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Quality Rank | #52 | #270 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Adoption Rank | #52 | #270 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Parameters | -- | 32B | -- |
| Context Window | 2000K | 131K | Grok 4 Fast |
| Pricing | $0.20/$0.50/M | $0.15/$0.58/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 50 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Benchmarks | 70 | 29 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Pricing | 1 | 1 | QwQ 32B |
| Context window size | 100 | 81 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Recency | 99 | 63 | Grok 4 Fast |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 85 | QwQ 32B |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 83/100 (rank #52), placing it in the top 82% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 47/100 (rank #270), placing it in the top 7% of all 290 models tracked.
Grok 4 Fast has a 36-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Grok 4 Fast also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (2000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (83/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Grok 4 Fast clearly outperforms QwQ 32B with a significant 36.400000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, Grok 4 Fast is the stronger choice. However, QwQ 32B may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Grok 4 Fast
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Grok 4 Fast
4% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Grok 4 Fast
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Grok 4 Fast
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Grok 4 Fast
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by xAI
| Capability | Grok 4 Fast | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
xAI
Alibaba
Grok 4 Fast saves you $0.006000/month
That's 1% cheaper than QwQ 32B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Grok 4 Fast | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 2M | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 30,000 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Sep 19, 2025 | Mar 5, 2025 |
Grok 4 Fast scores 83/100 (rank #52) compared to QwQ 32B's 47/100 (rank #270), giving it a 36-point advantage. Grok 4 Fast is the stronger overall choice, though QwQ 32B may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Grok 4 Fast is ranked #52 and QwQ 32B is ranked #270 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Grok 4 Fast is cheaper at $0.50/M output tokens vs QwQ 32B's $0.58/M output tokens - 1.2x more expensive. Input token pricing: Grok 4 Fast at $0.20/M vs QwQ 32B at $0.15/M.
Grok 4 Fast has a larger context window of 2,000,000 tokens compared to QwQ 32B's 131,072 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.