Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 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 Max (0902) scores 31.4 points higher (45.4 vs 14.0) but costs 20× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $250; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 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 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 45.4 | +224.3% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 3.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $4,934.79 | +1871.0% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 20× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.89s | 62.92s | +968.3% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 968.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 224.3% more intelligence, 1871.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 968.3% 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 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Today's Pareto 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-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill