Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.9

Rank #21 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Flash in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.6 leads 39.4 to 31.3.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.47 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

Side by side

Grok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index56.935.5
Released2026-08-122026-08-26
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K1M
Max output500K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$6$0.47
Results tracked491

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1617—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
LMArena Coding1465—
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Qwen3.8 Flash: 31.3

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
GDP.pdf17.2%16.6%
APEX-Agents65.3%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
ARC-AGI-267.1%—
SimpleBench75.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)80%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt19.7%—
Chess Puzzles40%—
EBR-Bench30.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1447—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.3%—
LMCA48.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.44—

Math Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202599.2%—
ProofBench51%—
LMArena Math1423—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
GPQA Diamond94%—
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
LMArena Expert1467—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Vision1263—
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Non-English1420—
LMArena Chinese1480—
LMArena French1461—
LMArena German1431—
LMArena Japanese1376—
LMArena Korean1397—
LMArena Russian1422—
LMArena Spanish1404—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1431—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1454—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Text1428—
LMArena Creative Writing1428—
LMArena Multi-Turn1425—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Flash has 1.

Related comparisons

Go deeper