Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Grok 4.6 and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Grok 4.6 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 58.5% to 20.2%.
Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 67.8% (#18 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0069 per sample), while Grok 4.6 is faster (7.4s vs 8.2s per sample).
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.6 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 67.8% | 70.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0069 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.39s | 8.24s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 20.2% $0.0068 | 58.5% $0.0007 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0074 | 59.5% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0048 | 90.6% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 92.0% $0.0086 | 88.9% $0.0003 |
| Data Extraction | 84.5% $0.0042 | 86.6% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 61.6% $0.0087 | 37.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 61.6% $0.027 | 68.9% $0.0011 |
Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.8 Flash averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 67.8% (#18 of 34) 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, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 58.5% against 20.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0069. Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 8.2s. 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.