Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 25.8 points higher (39.8 vs 14.0) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $250; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning).
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 39.8 | +184.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 2.8× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $362.72 | +44.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 44.9% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.89s | 50.49s | +757.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 757.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 184.3% more intelligence, 44.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 757.2% 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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill