Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 Fast vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 Fast xAI

39.4

Rank #167 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4 Fast scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 Fast leads 63.2 to 44.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 48.5% for Grok 4 Fast and 87.5% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.446.0
Released2025-09-192026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked3031

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.5 (#271), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev11591593
LMArena Coding14291482
SciCode—46.6%
WeirdML42.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 29.5 (#86), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%
τ²-bench Banking15.7%—
Cybench30%—
LMArena Search1171—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 22.2 (#201), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-25.3%42.4%
ARC-AGI-148.5%87.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14121460
DTBench82.7%88%
Epoch Capabilities Index144.2149.38
Kagi LLM Benchmark66.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
ForecastBench60.5—

Math Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 38.9 (#123), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math14191456
ProofBench—16%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 32.0 (#214), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert14111482
Vectara Hallucination Rate19.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4 Fast: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 51.3 (#111), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13961430
LMArena Chinese14571504
LMArena French14311465
LMArena German13831438
LMArena Japanese13521384
LMArena Korean13571393
LMArena Russian13891415
LMArena Spanish14151448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 73.2 (#121), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13871439

Long Context Grok 4 Fast leads

Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query14151450
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Grok 4 Fast: 60.0 (#102), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkGrok 4 FastQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14071441
LMArena Creative Writing13871384
LMArena Multi-Turn14141441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 Fast better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 Fast or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and Qwen3.8 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper