Grok 4.7 (Low) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Low) 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.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Grok 4.7 (Low)
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Grok 4.7 (Low): 5.5% less intelligence, 61.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 384.8% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Low) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.2 | 39.9 | −5.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 5.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,630.69 | $2,632.05 | +61.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 61.4% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.72s | 61.67s | +384.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 384.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 (Low)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-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill