Roboflow

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GrokGrok 4.6
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.7% to 23.8%.

Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 68.7% (#33 of 61) against 74.7% (#22 of 61) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0097 per sample), while Grok 4.6 is faster (17.5s vs 18.0s per sample).

Grok 4.6Qwen3.8 27B

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 27B
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.025
Output $/1M$6.00$4.35
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
68.7%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0097$0.0009
Avg speed / sample17.55s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
23.8%
±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9
$0.013
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
24.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1
$0.041
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
65.8%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3
$0.0079
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0.027
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
84.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0055
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.015
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1
$0.0091
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
91.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7
$0.023
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0050
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0090
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
61.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3
$0.0093
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
63.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2
$0.032
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

Grok 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#22 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 65.7% against 23.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0097. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 17.5s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.