Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Grok 4.7 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 64.2% to 35.1%.
Overall, Grok 4.7 averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 33.3s per sample).
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | — | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Not listed | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Not listed | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Not listed | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 63.5% | 59.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.020 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 33.31s | 7.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 | 59.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 | 67.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5 |
| Counting (low) | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 | 56.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5 |
| Counting (high) | 60.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2 | 68.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9 |
| Identification (low) | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 63.6% | 58.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | – | 62.9% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 | 35.1% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 | 69.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2 |
Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
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-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 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 59.7% (#35 of 63) for Qwen3.8 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.7 leads with 64.2% against 35.1%. 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 $0.020. Grok 4.7 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 7.3s 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.