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
| Criteria | Grok | Qwen | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math Competition Performance | No published AIME score | Exceptional (91.3% on AIME 2025) | Qwen |
| General Math Knowledge | Strong (85.4% MMLU Pro) | Stronger (87.8% MMLU Pro) | Qwen |
| Complex Problem Context | 128K token window | 256K token window | Qwen |
| Extended Reasoning | Deep reasoning capability | Deep reasoning capability | Tie |
| Real-time Math References | Web search integration | No web search | Grok |
Math Competition Performance
Grok
No published AIME score
Qwen
Exceptional (91.3% on AIME 2025)
General Math Knowledge
Grok
Strong (85.4% MMLU Pro)
Qwen
Stronger (87.8% MMLU Pro)
Complex Problem Context
Grok
128K token window
Qwen
256K token window
Extended Reasoning
Grok
Deep reasoning capability
Qwen
Deep reasoning capability
Real-time Math References
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.”
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
-
Choose u = ln(x) (this gets simpler upon differentiation)
Then du = (1/x) dx. -
Choose dv = x² dx
Then v = ∫ x² dx = (x³/3). -
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. -
Solve the remaining integral:
∫ x² dx = x³/3,
so − (1/3) · (x³/3) = −x³/9. -
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
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 — freeJoin 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat