Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 3 mini
Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 3 mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 27B | — |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 262k | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.35Chutes | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.75Chutes | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 61.7% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 42.2% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | 42.3% | — |
QwenSWEBenchSoftware engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 90.3% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 73% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 33.4% | — |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 70.7% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 30.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.2% | — |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 79.5% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 84.3% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 20.4% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | 42.9% | — |
Arena Elo (Code)Community preference (code) — Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1595 | — |
Arena Elo (Vision)Community preference (vision) — Real people give two anonymous AIs the same image — a photo, a screenshot, a diagram — and vote for whichever reads it better. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. It measures which AI people find more useful at looking at things, not how it scores on a fixed test set. Higher is better. | 1253 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Aug 14 2026 | Feb 17 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Grok 3 minivsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6 SolGrok 3 minivsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashGrok 3 minivsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerGrok 3 minivsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Grok 3 minivsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 3 minivsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-27B and Grok 3 mini don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Grok 3 mini shipped 543 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.8-27B is open weight, while Grok 3 mini is proprietary.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Qwen3.8-27B and Grok 3 mini don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Grok 3 mini was released by SpaceXAI on Feb 17 2025.
Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen. Grok 3 mini is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.