Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $2 | $2 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $6 | $6 |
Verdict. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (37.4). Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads on Coding Index (71.9), Intelligence Index (57.7).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. SpaceXAI and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: SpaceXAI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) costs $150.00 ($1800/year); Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $150.00 ($1800/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) ≈ $22.00/run, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B ≈ $22.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) ≈ $1000/run, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B ≈ $1000/run.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B generates tokens faster at 45 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has lower time-to-first-token (2.53s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.