Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $2 | $2 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $6 | $6 |
Verdict. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is strongest on Coding Index (71.9), Intelligence Index (57.7). Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (37.4).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Alibaba and SpaceXAI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while SpaceXAI 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): Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $150.00 ($1800/year); Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) costs $150.00 ($1800/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B ≈ $22.00/run, Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) ≈ $22.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B ≈ $1000/run, Grok 4.20 0309 (Reasoning) ≈ $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 49 tok/s vs — tok/s. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B also has lower time-to-first-token (2.69s 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.