Qwen 3.8 vs Grok 4.7

What I tested — same prompt, two models

I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Qwen 3.8 and Grok 4.7, side by side, on 10 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.

Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.

Qwen 3.8 · Benched on GoldieBench via the Qoder CLI (`qoder-qwen`, model Qwen3.8-Max-Preview) — the only door while it has no public API. Non-game tasks are one-shot like the rest of the field. GAME tasks run in Qoder's real AGENT mode: skill-infused build, then up to 2 QA fix rounds where a vision judge + live console errors are fed back and Qwen 3.8 edits its own file (it took crypt from a black-screen 3.0 to a torch-lit 7.8). Scored on a mid-play frame by the same Opus judge as everyone else.

Grok 4.7 · Wired into the Agent OS Grok Build tab (4.7 / 4.6 / 4.5 picker, OpenRouter fallback when the CLI is signed out) and benched on twenty skill-infused game builds, each played through its full gameplay arc on a Metal GPU before the vision judge scored the played frame.

Where Qwen 3.8 beat Grok 4.7

The tasks where I gave Qwen 3.8 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Where Grok 4.7 beat Qwen 3.8

The tasks where I gave Grok 4.7 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Strengths & weaknesses I logged

Pricing & context — the spec sheet

The verdict — which should you pick?

Across 10 scored shared tasks, Qwen 3.8 averaged 7.98/10, beating Grok 4.7's 7.33/10 by 0.65 points. Pick Qwen 3.8 when the build has to ship on the first prompt and you can afford the trade-offs in the comparison below.

If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Qwen 3.8 and Grok 4.7 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — one-shot 3d game and world prototypes where atmosphere matters → Qwen 3.8, one-shot arcade, driving and shooter builds where the whole game has to arrive in a single file → Grok 4.7. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.

FAQ — Qwen 3.8 vs Grok 4.7

Which is better, Qwen 3.8 or Grok 4.7?

On Goldie Bench, Qwen 3.8 averages 7.98/10 across the shared tasks, with 8 gold, 7 silver, 6 bronze overall. Grok 4.7 averages 7.33/10, with 0 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze. Qwen 3.8 wins the head-to-head 6–3.

How much does Qwen 3.8 cost vs Grok 4.7?

Qwen 3.8: Qwen3.8-Max-Preview is Alibaba's ~2.4T-parameter flagship, positioned just behind Claude Fable 5. It is NOT on OpenRouter or a public API yet — the only access today is inside Qoder (Alibaba's agentic coding platform, free 2-week Pro trial). Benched here via the Qoder CLI on model `Qwen3.8-Max-Preview`, one-shot. Grok 4.7: xAI's September 2026 release, priced exactly like Grok 4.6: $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output on the standard tier, $4 / $12 on the Fast tier (double the output speed). OpenRouter lists the same model at $1.60 / $4.80.

What's the context window for Qwen 3.8 vs Grok 4.7?

Qwen 3.8 has a Served through Alibaba's Qoder agent platform; the 3.8-Max preview has no standalone public context window yet. context window. Grok 4.7 has a 500,000 tokens context window.

When should I pick Qwen 3.8 over Grok 4.7?

Pick Qwen 3.8 for: One-shot 3D game and world prototypes where atmosphere matters; Anyone already in the Qoder IDE/CLI wanting a near-frontier model free on the Pro trial; A cheaper stand-in for Fable 5 on creative-visual builds. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Torch-lit dungeon (crypt) came out generic (6.3); one open-world RPG one-shot black-screened (twilightvale 2.5) — classic three.js r128 API drift; Preview is Qoder / Token-Plan only — no OpenRouter or public API, so it can't be routed into an app the way the OpenRouter models can.

When should I pick Grok 4.7 over Qwen 3.8?

Pick Grok 4.7 for: One-shot arcade, driving and shooter builds where the whole game has to arrive in a single file; High-volume agent work priced at half what the other frontier models charge; Grok Build inside the Agent OS: pick 4.7 in the tab and everything it writes lands in the workspace. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: 2 of 20 builds died on load or never moved when played — crypt: hud is not a function; voxelcraft: mesh.computeBoundingSphere is not a function file:///Users/j; Independent Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3.2 puts it at 46, seven points behind Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 at 53; Terminal-Bench 4.0 is the weak spot xAI reports itself: 38.0% at launch.

How does Goldie Bench score Qwen 3.8 vs Grok 4.7?

Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:

Full model pages: Qwen 3.8 · Grok 4.7 · back to the leaderboard