Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) scores 13.6 points higher (27.6 vs 14.0) but costs 4.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1165 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) when you need intelligence above 14.0, and Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) when 14.0 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) | Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 27.6 | +97.1% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 97.1% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $1,165.00 | +365.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 4.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.86s | 57.62s | +883.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is 883.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 97.1% more intelligence, 365.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 883.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Medium) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.8 27B (Medium)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-8-27b-medium · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-8-27b-medium?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill