Roboflow

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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 4.7
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Grok 4.7 scores higher on 2 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.7% to 40.4%.

Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 69.5% (#23 of 63) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (18.0s vs 33.3s per sample).

Grok 4.7Qwen3.8 27B

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modality—multimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K262K
ParametersUnknown27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.040
Output $/1M$6.00$2.30
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionNot listedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesNot listedSupported
Multimodal VisionNot listedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
63.5%
69.5%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1669.5%FP868.7%AWQ-INT469.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0009
Avg speed / sample33.31s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR
63.6%
$0.023
–
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

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 slightly better overall. The two split the 4 vision tasks 2 to 2, but Qwen3.8 27B averages 69.5% (#23 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7. 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 40.4%. 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 $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 18.0s per inference against 33.3s. 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.