Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.3 to 33.4.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 33.4 (#246), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | 1592 |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1487 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 33.8 (#47), Qwen3.8 27B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 28.3 (#91), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1436 | 1459 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 36.2 (#124), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1453 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#129), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.1: 53.6 (#64), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1464 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1468 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1444 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 74.0 (#106), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1436 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#96), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1448 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Grok 4.1: 62.6 (#71), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1382 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Qwen3.8 27B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.