Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#37); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.7 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 4.7 leads 36.7 to 31.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GDP.pdf: 22.8% for Grok 4.7 and 16.6% for Qwen3.8 Flash.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.47 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.135.5
Released2026-09-212026-08-26
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window500K1M
Max output500K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$6$0.47
Results tracked391

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—
LMArena Coding1427—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Qwen3.8 Flash: 31.3

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
GDP.pdf22.8%16.6%
APEX-Agents54.6%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1413—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA49.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53—

Math Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—
LMArena Math1407—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—
LMArena Expert1422—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Non-English1389—
LMArena Chinese1455—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena Russian1397—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1413—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Text1399—
LMArena Creative Writing1391—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—
LMArena Multi-Turn1393—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#37); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Flash has 1.

Related comparisons

Go deeper