Qwen3.8 27B vs Grok 4.6
Market Position
LiveBench Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost
This current-market view appears only when both compared models are reviewed current models with publisher-reported LiveBench token accounting and current sourced USD output rates.
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #13 of 2267.6 score |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #16 of 36$0.086 per LiveBench case | #18 of 36$0.097 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #8 of 2256.6 score |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,437.35100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1429.71618499, 1444.98971204]; votes 6626; rank 69 | 1,443.75100% of row best · rating · grok-4.6-high; 95% CI [1433.62910542, 1453.86294509]; votes 3453; rank 55 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 78.0295% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case | 82.17100% of row best · percent · grok-4.6 · 16,154 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark wins | 1 benchmark winOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | xAI |
| Family | Qwen3 8 27b | Grok 4 |
| Model | Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 |
| Version | Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2026-02-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 500K |
| Total parameters | 27.8B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Xai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities
Grok 4.6 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | family variantsimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Qwen3.8-27BQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.8 27B vs Grok 4.6 FAQs
Is Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Grok 4.6, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
Qwen3.8 27B is $0.40 and Grok 4.6 is $2.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $3.00 and Grok 4.6 is $6.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
Grok 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and Grok 4.6 supports 500K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6 be self-hosted?+
Qwen3.8 27B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Grok 4.6 is not marked open weight.
Can Qwen3.8 27B and Grok 4.6 understand images?+
Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Grok 4.6 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and Grok 4.6 is —.
Do Qwen3.8 27B and Grok 4.6 support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Grok 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Grok 4.6 has 1, so Qwen3.8 27B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Grok 4.6?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.