Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Exaone 4.0 32B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 83 to 76. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Exaone 4.0 32B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok 4.1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Grok 4.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Pick Exaone 4.0 32B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Exaone 4.0 32B
81.8
Grok 4.1
95.6
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Exaone 4.0 32B
85.3
Grok 4.1
97.1
Exaone 4.0 32B is ahead overall, 83 to 76. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME 2025, where the scores are 85.3% and 98%.
Grok 4.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95.6 versus 81.8. Exaone 4.0 32B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Grok 4.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 85.3. Inside this category, AIME 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.