Grok 4.3 (High) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (High) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) 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 (Low) scores 1.3 points higher (26.2 vs 24.9) but costs 2.9× as much to run the benchmark ($1060 vs $363; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Qwen3.8 27B (Low) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.3 (High).
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (High) | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.9 | 26.2 | +5.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 5.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $363.24 | $1,060.08 | +191.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 2.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 32.40s | 55.56s | +71.5% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 71.5% 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 (Low) vs Grok 4.3 (High): 5.2% more intelligence, 191.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 71.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.3 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Grok 4.3 (High)Qwen3.8 27B (Low)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/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill