Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.5
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Grok 4.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 125B | — |
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 · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $2.00 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $6.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.30 |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 62.5% | 64.7% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 81% | 78% |
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. | 58.7% | 54% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 54% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 13.4% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 54.2% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 60.8% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | — | 62% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 56.6% |
APEX-SWEExpert software engineering — expert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 53.6% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 83% |
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. | 48.1% | — |
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. | 91.9% | — |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 17.8% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 15.7% |
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. | — | 83.3% |
APEX-AgentsExpert agentic work — expert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 47.1% |
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. | 55.7% | — |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 73.9% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 73.5% | — |
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. | 35.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 91.7% | — |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 81.3% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 19.4% | — |
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. | 24.3% | — |
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. | 51.2% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey'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. | — | 12.92% |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | — | 86.88% |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 56 |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1526 |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1313 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.6% | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 76.6% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Aug 26 2026 | Jul 8 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsClaude Opus 5Grok 4.5vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGPT-5.6 SolGrok 4.5vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGemini 3.7 FlashGrok 4.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerGrok 4.5vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Grok 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.5vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads Grok 4.5 on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Multilingual, DeepSWE 1.1). Only Grok 4.5 has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Grok 4.5 shipped 49 days before Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is open weight, while Grok 4.5 is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Grok 4.5 leads at 64.7% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 62.5%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 81% vs Grok 4.5 at 78%. On DeepSWE 1.1, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 58.7% vs Grok 4.5 at 54%.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
Grok 4.5 was released by SpaceXAI on Jul 8 2026.
Grok 4.5 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 62.5% vs Grok 4.5 64.7%.
Only Grok 4.5 has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is an open weight model released by Qwen. Grok 4.5 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.