Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Grok Build 0.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 27.2, and Grok Build 0.1 costs 3.0x less per output token ($2.00 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.
Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Grok Build 0.1 for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($2.00 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 2
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 1
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 39.9 against 27.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a AA Agentic Index result, 50.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens against 256K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 $0.0020, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Grok Build 0.1 not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 20.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Coding Index: Grok Build 0.1 51.5 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 71.9, 20.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Grok Build 0.1 $2.00 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
- Context window
- Grok Build 0.1 takes 256K tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Grok Build 0.1 | Bars | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 51.5 | 71.9 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 13.4% | Not measured | Only Grok Build 0.1 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 27.2 | 39.9 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 50.1 | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| MCP Atlas | Not measured | 84.5% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 93.5% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 42.4% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MathArena | Not measured | 31.6% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 80.3% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | SpaceXAI Grok Build 0.1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | xAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 20, 2026 | August 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.00 | $6.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Grok Build 0.1 for output tokens 3.0x cheaper ($2.00 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Grok Build 0.1 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Grok Build 0.1 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks is the Grok Build 0.1 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?
2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Grok Build 0.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.