Which model is better: Grok 3 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (340ms faster than Grok 3) with 185 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 91.7% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Grok 3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 18.8x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (96.9% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.750
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 46.9x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.00
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 15.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
134k (16k out)
268k (66k out)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (2.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
620ms
280ms
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (340ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
88 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+97 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
65.8%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+15.2% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
84.6%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+7.1% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
80%
88.4%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+8.4% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
89.8%
95.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+5.9% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
52.7 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+32.4 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Grok 3 (xAI) for massive compute foundation model specialized in PhD-level science reasoning, real-time data analysis, and enterprise logic — offering a 134k context window, 620ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.750/1M cached reads).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.16/1M input tokens ($0.47/1M output) compared to $3.00/1M input ($15.00/1M output) for Grok 3.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Grok 3 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster first-token latency at 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s throughput) compared to 620ms TTFT (88 tok/s) for Grok 3.
How do Grok 3 and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Grok 3 scores 65.8% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Grok 3 scores 84.6% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 89.8% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Grok 3?
Choose Grok 3 (xAI) for massive compute foundation model specialized in PhD-level science reasoning, real-time data analysis, and enterprise logic — offering a 134k context window, 620ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.750/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
