Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#56); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.47 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Qwen3.8 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 35.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-08-26 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 500K | 1M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $0.47 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 1 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.7: —, Qwen3.8 Flash: 31.2
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GDP.pdf | — | 16.6% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 17.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1393 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23), Qwen3.8 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3.8 Flash?
Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#56); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Flash has 1.