Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Grok 4 vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Name: Grok 4 vs Qwen3.8 27B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Grok 4 (xAI) and Qwen3.8 27B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Grok 4 is ahead by 90 points (1,488 vs 1,398; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen3.8 27B resolves 58.8% versus 58.6% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). Qwen3.8 27B streams faster (152 tok/s) while Qwen3.8 27B is the cheaper output token ($3.2/1M). Qwen3.8 27B has the larger context window (262k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

xAI

Grok 4

Previous xAI flagship.

Elo 1,488$15/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba open-weight 27B drop dated Aug 14 2026. Dense enough to self-host; not a frontier MoE.

Elo 1,398$3.1999999999999997/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Grok 4 (3)vsQwen3.8 27B (7)

Grok 4: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B: 7W (70%)

← Grok 4Qwen3.8 27B →

Grok 4 (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,488vs1,398

Coding Elo

—vs1,422

SWE-bench

58.6%vs58.8%

LiveBench

64.1%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

79%vs73.4%

Grok 4: 3WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

98 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

230 msvs140 ms

Grok 4: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

256kvs262k

Grok 4: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 3W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageEven 3–3

Preference Elo

Grok 4

90 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen3.8 27B

54 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen3.8 27B

$11.80/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+6%1,488

EloHigh is better

1,398

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,422

LiveBench

High is better

+6%64.1%

LiveBenchHigh is better

60.6%

SWE-bench

High is better

58.6%

SWE-benchHigh is better

58.8%

GPQA

High is better

+8%79%

GPQAHigh is better

73.4%

TTFT

Low is better

230 ms

TTFTLow is better

140 ms+64%

Speed

High is better

98 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

152 tok/s+55%

In $

Low is better

$3/1M

In $Low is better

$0.45/1M+567%

Out $

Low is better

$15/1M

Out $Low is better

$3.2/1M+369%

Context

High is better

256k

ContextHigh is better

262k+2%

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 81% with Qwen3.8 27B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Grok 4$330.00 / mo

In: $105.00Out: $225.00

Qwen3.8 27B$63.75 / mo

In: $15.75Out: $48.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen3.8 27B is estimated to save $266.25/month ($3,195/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen3.8 27B:Pick Qwen3.8 27B when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Qwen3.8 27B:Pick Qwen3.8 27B when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Grok 4:Pick Grok 4 as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen3.8 27B

Higher SWE-bench (58.8%).

High-volume chatQwen3.8 27B

Lower output list price ($3.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionGrok 4

Grok 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen3.8 27B	Higher SWE-bench (58.8%).
High-volume chat	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower output list price ($3.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Grok 4	Grok 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchAug 14, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Alibaba open-weight 27B drop. Local/open-weight lists should see it. It will not win frontier-agents.

launchJul 10, 2025

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

2025-07 row. 4.6 is the buy. We keep 4 so upgrade pairs and old inbound links resolve.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/grok-4-vs-qwen-3-8-27b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

xAI

Grok 4

Elo 1,488

LiveBench64.1%

SWE-bench58.6%

Speed98 tok/s

Output cost$15/1M

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Elo 1,398

LiveBench60.6%

SWE-bench58.8%

Speed152 tok/s

Output cost$3.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?: Grok 4 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,488). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3.8 27B leads SWE-bench at 58.8% vs 58.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen3.8 27B output tokens are $3.2/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 230 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Qwen3.8 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 256k.
Can I self-host either model?: Qwen3.8 27B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Grok 4 and Qwen3.8 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Grok 4 matchups →|All Qwen3.8 27B matchups →

Grok 4 vs Grok 3 (previous grok)Grok 4 vs Grok 4.6 (next grok)Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen 3 Max (previous qwen)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Grok 4 Qwen 3 Max vs Grok 4 Qwen 2.5 Plus vs Grok 4

Grok 4 vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Grok 4 (3)vsQwen3.8 27B (7)

Grok 4: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B: 7W (70%)

← Grok 4Qwen3.8 27B →

Grok 4 (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,488vs1,398

Coding Elo

—vs1,422

SWE-bench

58.6%vs58.8%

LiveBench

64.1%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

79%vs73.4%

Grok 4: 3WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

98 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

230 msvs140 ms

Grok 4: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

256kvs262k

Grok 4: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 3W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen3.8 27B

Higher SWE-bench (58.8%).

High-volume chatQwen3.8 27B

Lower output list price ($3.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionGrok 4

Grok 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen3.8 27B	Higher SWE-bench (58.8%).
High-volume chat	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower output list price ($3.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Grok 4	Grok 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Grok 4 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,488). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B leads SWE-bench at 58.8% vs 58.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen3.8 27B output tokens are $3.2/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Grok 4 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 230 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 256k.

Can I self-host either model?

Qwen3.8 27B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Grok 4 and Qwen3.8 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Grok 4

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Grok 4

Qwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Grok 4

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Grok 4 remains the previous xAI flagship on this catalog

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Grok 4

Qwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons