The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 48.5 and 49.0 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8 Flash is 13.0x cheaper per token.

xAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 48.5 and 49.0.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Grok 4.7 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 13.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Qwen3.8 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Grok 4.7

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 13.0x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
48.5
#23
49.0
#22
37.4
#69
48.8
#17
40.1
#13
35.8
#27
36.1
#19
34.8
#24
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$6.00 / M
$0.47 / M
Context window
500,000
1,000,000

Individual benchmarks

23 reported for Grok 4.7 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

1 shared

Grok 4.7 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

For input processing, Grok 4.7 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Grok 4.7 ($6.00/1M tokens) is 12.8x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Grok 4.7 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
xAI
Grok 4.7
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$6.00
Best providerxAI
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.47
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Grok 4.7's 500,000 tokens. Only Qwen3.8 Flash specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

xAI
Grok 4.7
Input500,000 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Grok 4.7

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Grok 4.7 was released on 2026-09-21, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

Grok 4.7 is 1 month newer than Qwen3.8 Flash.

Grok 4.7

Sep 21, 2026

1 days ago

3w newer
Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

3 weeks ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Grok 4.7 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Grok 4.7's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date.

Grok 4.7

Jun 2026

Qwen3.8 Flash

Provider Availability

Grok 4.7 is available from xAI. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.

Grok 4.7

xai logo
xAI
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $6.00/1M

Qwen3.8 Flash

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Grok 4.7
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

Which is better, Grok 4.7 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 48.5 and 49.0. Grok 4.7 is made by xAI and Qwen3.8 Flash is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Grok 4.7 compare to Qwen3.8 Flash in benchmarks?

Grok 4.7 scores BixBench MCQ: 88.4%, WMDP-Bio: 88.1%, WMDP-Cyber: 88.1%, WMDP-Chem: 84.9%, CyberGym: 80.3%. Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is Grok 4.7 cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is 13.3x cheaper for input tokens. Grok 4.7 costs $2.00/M input and $6.00/M output via xai. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Grok 4.7 supports 500K tokens and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (48.5 vs 49.0), context window (500K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($2.00 vs $0.15/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Grok 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Grok 4.7 is developed by xAI and Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.