Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6
Qwen3.8-27B | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 27B | — |
Context window | 262k | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 69.9% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial 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% | 65.9%Best |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitfrontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 61.3% |
Expert software engineering APEX-SWEexpert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 56.4% |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests 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% | — |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding 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% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 26% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 73% | — |
Expert agentic work APEX-Agentsexpert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 57.5% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests 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% | — |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 70.7% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.2% | — |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 79.5% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A 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% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe 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% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 15.8% |
Overall intelligence AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 61 |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1753 |
Knowledge work AA-BriefcaseArtificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1577 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Aug 14 2026 | Aug 12 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Qwen3.8-27B or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 leads Qwen3.8-27B on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (DeepSWE 1.1). Grok 4.6 shipped 2 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.8-27B is open weight, while Grok 4.6 is proprietary.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Grok 4.6 leads at 65.9% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 42.2%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Grok 4.6 was released by SpaceXAI on Aug 12 2026.
Grok 4.6 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Qwen3.8-27B 42.2% vs Grok 4.6 65.9%.
Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen. Grok 4.6 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Grok 4.6vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberGrok 4.6vsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashGrok 4.6vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerGrok 4.6vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Grok 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5