Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) 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 (Xhigh) scores 6.5 points higher (46.4 vs 39.9) but costs 1.9× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 39.9 | −14.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 14.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $2,632.05 | −47.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 47.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 72.71s | 61.67s | −15.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 15.2% faster |
| 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 (Xhigh): 14.0% less intelligence, 47.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 15.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- 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 (Xhigh)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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill