Grok 4.6 (High) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.6 (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
Grok 4.6 (High) scores 18.1 points higher (44.3 vs 26.2) but costs 1.9× as much to run the benchmark ($1963 vs $1060; both premium class). Pick Grok 4.6 (High) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 27B (Low).
| Metric | Grok 4.6 (High) | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 44.3 | 26.2 | −40.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 40.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,962.90 | $1,060.08 | −46.0% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 46.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.23s | 55.56s | +49.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 49.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs Grok 4.6 (High): 40.9% less intelligence, 46.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 49.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.6 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 4.6 (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-4-6/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-6/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill