Noometry

Model comparison

Grok-3 mini vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Grok-3 mini xAI

41.0

Rank #130 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok-3 mini scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 31.5 to 13.8.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.045.3
Released2025-04-092026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked3528

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok-3 mini: 40.4 (#126), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding13801487
Aider Polyglot49.3%—
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
WeirdML42.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok-3 mini: 13.8 (#323), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13741459
Epoch Capabilities Index140.35149.38
ARC-AGI-20.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark61.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-116.5%—
CritPt—5.4%
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Grok-3 mini leads

Grok-3 mini: 40.3 (#78), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math13861453
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202577.8%—
ProofBench—16%
Omni-MATH31.8%—
MATH Level 590.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)5.9%—

Knowledge Grok-3 mini leads

Grok-3 mini: 46.3 (#75), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert13951482
GPQA Diamond76.3%—
MMLU-Pro79.9%—
Confabulations10.8%—
GPQA (HELM)67.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok-3 mini: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1270

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok-3 mini: 48.3 (#141), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13521431
LMArena Chinese13871504
LMArena French13571468
LMArena German13501435
LMArena Japanese13431392
LMArena Korean13361389
LMArena Russian13521421
LMArena Spanish13791444

Instruction Following Grok-3 mini leads

Grok-3 mini: 78.7 (#8), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13561436
IFEval95.1%—

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok-3 mini: 41.0 (#142), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query13721448
Fiction.LiveBench66.7%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok-3 mini: 52.7 (#163), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGrok-3 miniQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text13701441
LMArena Creative Writing13421382
LMArena Multi-Turn13551443
Short-Story Creative Writing73.5%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
WildBench65.1%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok-3 mini better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok-3 mini or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok-3 mini and Qwen3.8 27B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-3 mini has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper