Grok 4.7 (Low) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Low) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 (Low) scores 2.4 points higher (42.2 vs 39.8) but costs 4.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1631 vs $363; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Low) when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Low) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.2 | 39.8 | −5.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 5.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,630.69 | $362.72 | −77.8% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 77.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.72s | 50.51s | +371.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 371.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Grok 4.7 (Low): 5.7% less intelligence, 77.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 371.2% slower end-to-end.
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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Grok 4.7 (Low)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill