Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 comes out ahead, 44 to 34 on our weighted score.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
- Our pick
xAIGrok 4.6
44/100- ECI156.6
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context500K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Grok 4.6 is our pick
Grok 4.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on inputs & features and 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 priceSame priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 · Grok 4.6 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGrok 4.6Grok 4.6 500,000 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Grok 4.6: Text, Images
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 27 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 48 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 44/100 |
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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | Grok 4.6xAI |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $2.00 |
| Output | $6.00 | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.50 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 200K: $4.00 / $12.00 |
| Price source | Median of 21 providers | Official xAI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 500,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 500,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Openqwen3.8-max | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | grok-4.6 |
| API providers | 21 | 29 (best) |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Aug 12, 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Grok 4.6$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on inputs & features and 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, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Grok 4.6?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Grok 4.6 cost the same: $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet and Grok 4.6 has an ECI of 156.6.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Grok 4.6 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 2.4T A95B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Grok 4.6 up to 500,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Grok 4.6 accepts text and images. Grok 4.6 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B publishes its weights (qwen3.8-max) and can be self-hosted; Grok 4.6 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is the newest, released Aug 12, 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 Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs ParetoUnbiased
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Sakana NamazuSakana AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Command A PlusCohere
- Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 156.6
- Grok 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic · ECI 156.3
