Grok vs Qwen for Math

Qwen decisively outperforms Grok for mathematics, with superior scores across all relevant benchmarks—including a standout 91.3% on AIME 2025 compared to Grok's gaps in specialized math tests, plus higher GPQA Diamond (88.4% vs 85.3%) and MMLU Pro (87.8% vs 85.4%) scores. The 256K context window gives Qwen an edge for complex multi-step problems, and both offer extended thinking, but Qwen's math capabilities are demonstrably stronger. For pure mathematical problem-solving, Qwen is the clear choice, especially at a significantly lower cost.

Head-to-Head for Math

Math Competition Performance

Qwen

Grok

No published AIME score

Qwen

Exceptional (91.3% on AIME 2025)

General Math Knowledge

Qwen

Grok

Strong (85.4% MMLU Pro)

Qwen

Stronger (87.8% MMLU Pro)

Complex Problem Context

Qwen

Grok

128K token window

Qwen

256K token window

Extended Reasoning

Tie

Grok

Deep reasoning capability

Qwen

Deep reasoning capability

Real-time Math References

Grok

Grok

Web search integration

Qwen

No web search

See Them Answer a Math Question

We asked both models the same math-focused prompt.

Solve the integral ∫(x²·ln(x))dx step by step, then verify your answer by differentiating the result.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Solve the integral ∫(x²·ln(x))dx step by step, then verify your answer by differentiating the result.

Step-by-Step Solution to ∫ x² ln(x) dx

To solve this indefinite integral, use integration by parts. The formula is:

∫ u dv = u v − ∫ v du

  1. Choose u = ln(x) (this gets simpler upon differentiation)
    Then du = (1/x) dx.

  2. Choose dv = x² dx
    Then v = ∫ x² dx = (x³/3).

  3. Apply the integration by parts formula:
    ∫ x² ln(x) dx = [ln(x) · (x³/3)] − ∫ (x³/3) · (1/x) dx
    = (x³/3) ln(x) − (1/3) ∫ x² dx.

  4. Solve the remaining integral:
    ∫ x² dx = x³/3,
    so − (1/3) · (x³/3) = −x³/9.

  5. Add the constant of integration:
    ∫ x² ln(x) dx = (x³/3) ln(x) − x³/9 + C.

Verification by Differentiation

Differentiate the result y = (x³/3) ln(x) − x³/9 + C to confirm it matches the integrand x² ln(x).

  • Use the product rule on the first term: d/dx [(x³/3) ln(x)]
    = [(x³/3)'] ln(x) + (x³/3) [ln(x)]'
    = (x²) ln(x) + (x³/3)(1/x)
    = x² ln(x) + (x²/3).

  • Differentiate the second term: d/dx [−x³/9] = −(3x²/9) = −x²/3.

  • The constant C differentiates to 0.

  • Combine: x² ln(x) + x²/3 − x²/3 = x² ln(x).

The derivative matches the original integrand, so the solution is verified.

Try math tasks with both models

See Grok and Qwen answer side by side in Multichat

Try it yourself — free

Detailed Breakdown

When it comes to mathematical reasoning, Qwen holds a clear advantage over Grok based on both benchmark performance and feature depth. That said, Grok is no slouch, and the right choice depends on how you plan to use these tools day-to-day.

On the benchmarks, the gap is significant. Qwen scores 91.3% on AIME 2025 — a competition-level math test that filters out all but the most capable models — and 88.4% on GPQA Diamond, which covers graduate-level science and quantitative reasoning. Grok's GPQA Diamond score of 85.3% is competitive but trails noticeably. More telling is the Humanity's Last Exam score: Qwen reaches 28.7% versus Grok's 17.6%, a 63% relative gap on one of the hardest evaluations available. For tasks like solving differential equations, working through proof-based problems, or tackling olympiad-style questions, Qwen is the stronger performer.

Grok's mathematical strengths are real but more narrowly defined. xAI specifically tuned Grok for math and science reasoning, and it shows in practical tasks — algebra, calculus, probability, and applied statistics are all handled well. Where Grok adds unique value for math users is its real-time web access and DeepSearch capability. If you need to look up a theorem, cross-reference a formula, or pull in current research results while working through a problem, Grok can do that natively. Qwen lacks web search, which limits its usefulness when problems require external context or up-to-date numerical data.

Both models support extended thinking, which is critical for multi-step mathematical work. This allows each model to reason through complex derivations methodically rather than jumping to conclusions — a must-have feature for serious math use.

For students working through coursework, engineers solving applied problems, or researchers doing quantitative analysis, Qwen is the better default. Its higher benchmark scores translate into more reliable step-by-step solutions, fewer arithmetic errors in complex chains of reasoning, and better handling of edge cases. The 256K context window also makes it easier to paste in large problem sets or lengthy proofs without truncation issues.

Grok makes sense if you're already in the X/Twitter ecosystem and want math assistance bundled into a broader AI subscription, or if your work frequently requires cross-referencing live information alongside mathematical work.

Recommendation: Choose Qwen for pure mathematical performance. Its benchmark scores are demonstrably stronger, and the large context window suits technical workloads well. Opt for Grok if real-time web lookup matters as much as raw math capability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Other Topics for Grok vs Qwen

Math Comparisons for Other Models

Try math tasks with Grok and Qwen

Compare in Multichat — free

Join 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat