Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.3 xAI

43.6

Rank #80 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.3 leads 52.5 to 40.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 11% for Grok 4.3 and 16% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.3.
  • Grok 4.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.645.3
Released2026-04-172026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output30K33K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$2.50$1.49
Results tracked4028

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 41.3 (#117), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev13571592
SciCode47.3%46.6%
LMArena Coding14151487
WeirdML49.9%—
ALE-Bench944.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 27.6 (#93), Qwen3.8 27B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
GDP.pdf8%—
LMArena Search1165—
Vending-Bench 235.26—

Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 34.9 (#60), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
NYT Connections (extended)55.2%54.5%
CritPt8%5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts13971459
DTBench90.7%88%
LMCA38.3%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.13149.38
Chess Puzzles25%—
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 45.8 (#60), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
ProofBench11%16%
LMArena Math13881453
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)42.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 414.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—

Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#57), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert13851482
GPQA Diamond88.8%—
SimpleQA Verified33.2%—

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#96), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision12311270
Blueprint-Bench 20%—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 50.7 (#114), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13851431
LMArena Chinese14231504
LMArena French14121468
LMArena German13951435
LMArena Japanese13791392
LMArena Korean13571389
LMArena Russian13991421
LMArena Spanish14021444

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 72.3 (#135), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13661436

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#118), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query13931448

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4.3: 58.6 (#112), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text13971441
LMArena Creative Writing13801382
LMArena Multi-Turn14061443
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
EQ-Bench 41075—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 43.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Grok 4.3 lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 41.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.3 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen3.8 27B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper