Grok 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Should you write with Grok 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max? On this page the only thing that changes is the model. Both wrote their own version of the scripts behind 10 of my What's AI videos, five drafts per script, and three judges from three model families scored every draft blind, with my finished script as the reference. Qwen3.8 Max leads overall, 83.2 to 81.9. Their per-model Elo intervals overlap on this board.
The verdict
Close call, and it comes down to discipline against price. Qwen3.8 Max is #68 to Grok 4.5's #76, and their Elo ranges overlap, which leaves the order open. Qwen scores about twenty points higher on Length Adherence and better on visual cues. Grok leads on voice match, continuity and writing craft. It's also far cheaper and faster: $0.063 per script in under a minute, against $0.161 and over seven minutes for Qwen. I lean Qwen for its discipline, but if budget or speed matters, Grok is a perfectly defensible pick here.
Pick Grok 4.5 for a better voice match, a lower price and much faster drafts.
Pick Qwen3.8 Max when accurate length and usable visual cues matter most.
How to read these numbers
Overall vs Elo. Overall is the weighted rubric score. Elo compares each model's five-draft average with every other model's, script by script, and counts gaps inside run-to-run noise as draws, so it rewards winning often and can disagree with overall. My own scripts score 90.9 on the same rubric, not a literal 100. Right now 2 of 167 ranked configurations reach it. A model above that line writes at that level on this rubric. That's not the same as beating my script line for line.
Reading the Elo intervals. Each 95% range comes from resampling every model's recorded run scores on each task and re-ranking. Comparing these separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between two models: far apart is strong evidence, and overlap isn't a tie. The tasks stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new tasks (the long version).
Metric by metric: where the gap comes from
Blue is Grok 4.5, orange is Qwen3.8 Max, and the solid bar takes the metric. The weight under each name is how much it counts toward the overall. Weighted by how much each metric counts, Length Adherence does the most to put Qwen3.8 Max ahead: it leads there by 20.8 points. If you care about one thing, say voice or length, go straight to that row.
Cost, speed, and consistency
Quality is half the decision. The other half is what each script costs you, how long you wait, and how often you get a bad draft. The lead has a price: Qwen3.8 Max costs about 2.6x as much per script as Grok 4.5.
| Grok 4.5 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 81.9 | 83.2 |
| Writing Elo | 1618 | 1682 |
| Score spread across drafts (± overall std) | 2.950 | 1.980 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.063 | 0.161 |
| Avg time per script (min) | 0.9 | 7.2 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Green wins the row, and for spread, cost and time, lower wins. Cost is one script at recorded list prices, uncached and without judging, so your real bill will differ. Spread is how much the overall score moves across a model's drafts, and time is the average time to get one accepted script, retries included.
Want the script-by-script detail? Full scorecards: Grok 4.5 · Qwen3.8 Max. The whole scoring pipeline is on the methodology page.
← All comparisons