Model comparison

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Grok 4.20

xAI

54.0/100

Estimated · Public rank #95

90% interval 37.2–70.7

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 53.95, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

8 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok 4.20
Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

10 Grok 4.20 only

8 Shared

44 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 8
Grok 4.20 only: 10
Qwen3.8 Max only: 44
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Grok 4.20: 70.1
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.3
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads

Coding

Directional only

Grok 4.20: 67.1
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: 47.1
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: 53.3
Qwen3.8 Max: 78.3
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 50.2
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Grok 4.20: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 82.8
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Grok 4.20 and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Grok 4.20	Qwen3.8 Max	Weighted basis	Reading
Multimodal	70.1	86.3	Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads
Coding	67.1	67.7	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Agentic	47.1	86.1	Not comparable1 vs 1 rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	53.3	78.3	Not comparable1 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	Not measured	50.2	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	82.8	Not comparable0 vs 1 rows	Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

CharXiv
Multimodal
Grok 4.20: 60.9%Qwen3.8 Max: 93.5%Normalized gap 32.6Grok 4.20 source Qwen3.8 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Grok 4.20: 51.8%Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7%Normalized gap 15.9Grok 4.20 source Qwen3.8 Max source
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Grok 4.20: 75.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 82.3%Normalized gap 7.1Grok 4.20 source Qwen3.8 Max source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Grok 4.20: $0.005; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok 4.20: $0.118; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Grok 4.20: $0.5; Fits in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Grok 4.20 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGrok 4.20Qwen3.8 Max

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Grok 4.20

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Grok 4.20

Not published

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok 4.20

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok 4.20

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok 4.20

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

Grok 4.20

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Grok 4.20

2026-03-10

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 53.95, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Grok 4.20 has the larger documented window (2M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence62 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.2047.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Grok 4.2062.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Grok 4.2038.36%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

LiveCodeBench Pro
Grok 4.2074.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Grok 4.2076.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Grok 4.2051.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Grok 4.204.06%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
Grok 4.2053.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Grok 4.200.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA-D
Grok 4.2088.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Grok 4.2031.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Grok 4.2020.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Grok 4.2050.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Grok 4.2075.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
CharXiv
Grok 4.2060.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
ERQA
Grok 4.2054.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SimpleVQA
Grok 4.2057.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MedXpertQA (MM)
Grok 4.2065.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MathVision
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Grok 4.20—
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 53.95, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Grok 4.20 has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 3, 2026

Watch Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.8 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Multimodal

Coding

Agentic

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Grok 4.20 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Grok 4.20 vs Qwen3.8 Max