Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 55.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 60.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 31% for Grok 4.5 and 58% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Both cost about the same: $2 input and $6 output per million tokens.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-08 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1553 | 1674 |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1502 |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | 23.2% |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | 88.3% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1496 |
| DTBench | 96.5% | 92% |
| LMCA | 45.2% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.92 | 156.41 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 70% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 100% |
| ProofBench | 31% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1459 | 1499 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | 47.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1507 |
Multimodal Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | 20% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1496 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1404 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | 1492 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1479 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1489 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.5 better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 55.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 52.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Qwen3.8 Max share?
37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.