Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Grok 4.3vsQwen3.8 Max Prime
Updated Sep 2026

Grok 4.3vsQwen3.8 Max Prime

Grok 4.3 is cheaper than Qwen3.8 Max Prime at $1.25/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Grok 4.3 and Qwen3.8 Max Prime compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecGrok 4.3Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Input price$1.25/M tokens$4/M tokens
Output price$2.5/M tokens$12/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsClosedClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMay 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Grok 4.31,529 words
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Contract interpretation varies by jurisdiction (most likely U.S. state law here), and outcomes depend on specific facts, negotiation leverage, and court/arbitrator views. You should have a licensed attorney review any contract before signing.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime2,126 words
Contract Analysis: Exploitative Clauses & Recommended Modifications Executive Summary This agreement is severely one-sided in favor of the Client. Nearly every clause shifts risk, cost, or obligation onto the Contractor while granting the Client broad unilateral rights. Below is a clause-by-clause breakdown.
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Grok 4.3205 words
Golden Pantry Chickpea Toss Ingredients (exactly 7 common pantry staples): 8 oz dry pasta (any shape like penne or rotini) 1 (15 oz) can chickpeas, drained 1 (14.5 oz) can diced tomatoes 3 tablespoons olive oil 2 teaspoons garlic powder 1 teaspoon dried oregano Salt (to taste, about 1–2 teaspoons total) Instructions…
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime223 words
🍯 Golden Hour Noodles A sweet, savory, garlicky pasta that tastes like it took way more effort than it did. Ingredients (7) # Ingredient Amount 1 Spaghetti 8 oz (half a box) 2 Butter 3 tablespoons 3 Garlic, minced 4 cloves 4 Honey 2 tablespoons 5 Soy sauce 1 tablespoon 6 Red pepper flakes ½ teaspoon 7 Parmesan cheese…
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Grok 4.3379 words
1) Year-by-Year LBO Table (FY2026–FY2030, $m) FY2026 Revenue: 972 EBITDA: 136.08 Term cash interest: 43.2 (9% × 480) Mezz cash interest: 21.6 (12% × 180) Cash taxes: 17.82 (25% × (136.08 – 64.8)) Capex: 29.16 ΔNWC: 0.36 FCF after debt service (after mandatory amort): 19.14 Ending Term Loan: 456.06 Ending Mezz…
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime673 words
HarborTech Services (HTS) – LBO Underwriting Memo Entry & Capital Structure Item Amount FY2025 EBITDA $120.0m Entry Multiple 12.0x Enterprise Value $1,440.0m Transaction Fees (2.0% of EV) $28.8m Total Uses $1,468.8m Term Loan (4.0x, 9.0% cash, 1.0% amort) $480.0m Mezzanine (1.5x, 12.0% cash + 2.0% PIK) $180.0m Sponsor…
Read the full answer

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

Grok 4.3598 words
1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan This plan focuses on three foundational areas: Nutrition, Exercise, and Sleep. It is designed for beginners and builds gradually across four weeks. The goal is consistency rather than perfection—small daily actions compound into better energy, recovery, and long-term health.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime473 words
Your 1-Month Foundation Plan A simple, progressive plan built on three pillars. Each week, you add one small layer. No perfection required—just consistency. 🏃 Pillar 1: Movement Why: Even modest activity reduces all-cause mortality risk and improves mood, sleep, and energy within days.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Grok 4.31,173 words
Technological Acceleration (1920–1939) The transistor’s 1920 invention (assume U.S./Bell Labs context for continuity with real history, with rapid diffusion to Western Europe) replaces bulky, fragile vacuum tubes decades earlier. Key first-order effects: Radio and telephony miniaturize and cheapen immediately.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime2,943 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual History Through 1980 Preamble: The Invention Itself The transistor's actual invention required quantum mechanical understanding of semiconductor behavior. In 1920, this theory didn't yet exist.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Grok 4.3500 words
The three weakest claims are: Solution: "94% accuracy" decoding neural patterns into text with a non-invasive EEG headband Why it's weak: This is the most technically dubious claim. Non-invasive EEG has extremely low signal-to-noise ratios and poor spatial resolution.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.8 Max Prime834 words
The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch The TAM Calculation (Slide 4) The Claim: "We're targeting the 3.5 billion smartphone users worldwide. TAM: $180B." Why it's weak: This is a textbook example of TAM inflation that will immediately erode investor trust.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Grok 4.3 costs 4.8x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Grok 4.3
Input
$1.25
3.2× cheaper
Output
$2.50
4.8× cheaper
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Input
$4.00
Output
$12.00

Grok 4.3 is cheaper on both: 3.2× input, 4.8× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Grok 4.31 host
HostInOutContextUptime
xAI$1.25 in·$2.50 out·1M·99.9% up
Qwen3.8 Max Prime1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$4.00 in·$12.00 out·1M·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Grok 4.3 is developed by xAI while Qwen3.8 Max Prime is developed by Qwen. Grok 4.3 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3.8 Max Prime's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Grok 4.3 and Qwen3.8 Max Prime each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Grok 4.3 costs $1.25/M input tokens and Qwen3.8 Max Prime costs $4/M input tokens. Grok 4.3 is $2.75/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 4.3 and Qwen3.8 Max Prime 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Grok 4.3 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoCommand A+ logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Grok 4.3 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Grok 4.3 logoGrok 4.7 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Grok 4.7Same lab
Grok 4.3 logoGrok 4.6 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Grok 4.6Same lab
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashSame lab
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Grok 4.3 logoGLM 4.5 logo
Grok 4.3 vs GLM 4.5Same size
Grok 4.3 logoGLM 4.5 Air logo
Grok 4.3 vs GLM 4.5 AirSame size
Grok 4.3 logoGLM 4.6 logo
Grok 4.3 vs GLM 4.6New provider
Grok 4.3 logoGLM 4.7 logo
Grok 4.3 vs GLM 4.7Same size

Model pages

Grok 4.3 logo
Grok 4.358 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3.8 Max Prime19 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed