Roboflow

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.

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

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 59.8% to 20.2%.

Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 69.5% (#25 of 53) against 68.8% (#27 of 53) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 7.4s per sample).

Grok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 13, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.6Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.150
Output $/1M$6.00$0.470
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
69.5%
68.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0069$0.0004
Avg speed / sample7.39s6.48s
By task
Object Detection (low)
20.2%
$0.0068
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
70.3%
$0.0074
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
87.5%
$0.0048
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
92.0%
$0.0086
88.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 88.9
$0.0003
OCR (high)
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.8 to 91.9
$0.0005
Data Extraction (low)
85.6%
$0.0042
84.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 86.6
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (low)
61.6%
$0.0087
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.027
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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 Flash

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, Grok 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.5% (#25 of 53) against 68.8% (#27 of 53) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 Flash leads with 59.8% 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s per inference against 7.4s. 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.