Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GrokGrok 4.7
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

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 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.7Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationSpaceXAIQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modality—multimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.150
Output $/1M$6.00$0.470
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%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0004
Avg speed / sample33.31s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
63.6%
$0.023
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)–
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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 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 4.7 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.