Grok 3 Mini Beta is cheaper than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B at $0.4/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Grok 3 Mini Beta costs 7.5x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.4/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.8/M tokens | $6/M tokens |
| Context window | 131K tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | — | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2025 | Aug 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $4.00 | $20.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Grok 3 Mini Beta is developed by xAI while Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is developed by Qwen. Grok 3 Mini Beta has a 131K token context window vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 13 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Grok 3 Mini Beta and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 13 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Grok 3 Mini Beta costs $0.4/M input tokens and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2/M input tokens. Grok 3 Mini Beta is $1.60/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Grok 3 Mini Beta and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.