Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 6.6 points higher (46.4 vs 39.8) but costs 14× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $363; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 39.8 | −14.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 14.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $362.72 | −92.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 92.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 45.88s | 50.52s | +10.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 10.1% 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 (Xhigh): 14.2% less intelligence, 92.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 10.1% 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-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 (Xhigh)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/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill