Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) 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 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 20.2 points higher (46.4 vs 26.2) but costs 4.7× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $1060; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 26.2, and Qwen3.8 27B (Low) when 26.2 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 26.2 | −43.5% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 43.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $1,060.08 | −78.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 78.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.93s | 55.56s | +11.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 11.3% 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 4.7 (Xhigh): 43.5% less intelligence, 78.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 11.3% slower 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 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)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-4-7/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill