Compare/Grok 4.6 (low) vs Qwen3.8 Max

Grok 4.6 (low)vsQwen3.8 Max

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

SpaceXAI

Grok 4.6 (low)

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
55 tok/s
TTFT
8.05s
Alibaba

Qwen3.8 Max

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
39 tok/s
TTFT
2.50s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Tie
Faster (tok/s)
Grok 4.6 (low)
Lower Latency
Qwen3.8 Max
Benchmarks (0-2)
Qwen3.8 Max

Pricing Comparison

MetricGrok 4.6 (low)Qwen3.8 Max
Input ($/M tokens)$2$2
Output ($/M tokens)$6$6
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Grok 4.6 (low)$2.60
Qwen3.8 Max$2.60

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Grok 4.6 (low)
55 tok/s
Qwen3.8 Max
39 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Grok 4.6 (low)
8.05s
Qwen3.8 Max
2.50s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.8 Max makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Grok 4.6 (low) is strongest on Coding Index (66.3), Intelligence Index (51.7). Qwen3.8 Max leads on Coding Index (71.8), Intelligence Index (58.1).

Speed. On throughput, Grok 4.6 (low) generates tokens at 55 tok/s versus 39 tok/s — about 30% faster. On time-to-first-token, Qwen3.8 Max responds in 2500ms vs 8050ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

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 4.6 (low) costs $150.00 ($1800/year); Qwen3.8 Max costs $150.00 ($1800/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Grok 4.6 (low) ≈ $22.00/run, Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $22.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Grok 4.6 (low) ≈ $1000/run, Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $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.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): Grok 4.6 (low) = 118, Qwen3.8 Max = 130. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
51.758.1
Coding Index
66.371.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Grok 4.6 (low)0 wins
2 winsQwen3.8 Max

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 (low) or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 Max wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Grok 4.6 (low). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Grok 4.6 (low) generates tokens faster at 55 tok/s vs 39 tok/s. However, Qwen3.8 Max has lower time-to-first-token (2.50s vs 8.05s).

When should I use Grok 4.6 (low) vs Qwen3.8 Max?

Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Qwen3.8 Max for stronger benchmark performance, and Grok 4.6 (low) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.