Grok 4.7 (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (High) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 4.7 (High) scores 6.4 points higher (46.3 vs 39.9) but costs 1.3× as much to run the benchmark ($3473 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Grok 4.7 (High) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.3 | 39.9 | −13.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 13.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $3,473.49 | $2,632.05 | −24.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 24.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 54.52s | 64.84s | +18.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 18.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Grok 4.7 (High): 13.8% less intelligence, 24.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 18.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 55.10 for $3117.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Grok 4.7 (High)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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-4-7-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill