Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Qwen3.8 Flash Next comes out ahead, 70 to 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
xAIGrok 4.6
44/100- ECI156.6
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context500K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is our pick
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Grok 4.6 (44). It leads on price and inputs & features. Grok 4.6 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · Grok 4.6 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGrok 4.6Grok 4.6 500,000 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Flash NextGrok 4.6: Text, Images · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 27 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 48 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 44/100 | 70/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Grok 4.6xAI | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 156.6 | — |
| ECI rank | #19 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 94.0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 66.0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 99.2% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 49.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.50 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $0.275 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Over 200K: $4.00 / $12.00 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official xAI API | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 500,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 500,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | grok-4.6 | — |
| API providers | 29 (best) | 5 |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Feb 1, 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Grok 4.6$32.00
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Grok 4.6 (44). It leads on price and inputs & features. Grok 4.6 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). Grok 4.6 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official xAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.275 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Flash Next versus $3.00 for Grok 4.6 (11× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Grok 4.6 has an ECI of 156.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 has the largest context window at 500,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next. Maximum output per response: Grok 4.6 up to 500,000, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Grok 4.6 accepts text and images; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash Next handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; Grok 4.6 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. Grok 4.6 came out Aug 12, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Grok 4.6 Feb 1, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3.8 MaxThree-way comparison
- Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 156.6
- Grok 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic · ECI 156.3
- Grok 4.6 vs GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 155.8
- Grok 4.6 vs GPT-6 SolOpenAI
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs MiniCPM5-2BOpenBMB
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
