Grok 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Should you write with Grok 4.7 or Qwen3.8 Flash? 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 four judges (three LLM judges from three model families plus Jev, a typed judge from TypeSafe) scored every draft blind, with my finished script as the reference. Grok 4.7 leads overall, 87.6 to 83.2.
The verdict
Grok 4.7 is #32 and Qwen3.8 Flash is #79, and Grok is the far better writer: it leads eight of the nine metrics, by about eight points each on Continuity & Emotion, Visual Cue Quality and Tone & Voice Match. Qwen's one win is Length Adherence, by about twenty-one points. Qwen costs about a cent a script against twenty-seven cents, but it isn't much faster. I'd only take it for very cheap drafts where hitting the length matters more than how the script reads.
Pick Grok 4.7 for scripts that flow and sound like a person.
Pick Qwen3.8 Flash for very cheap drafts that hit their length.
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.
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 4.7, orange is Qwen3.8 Flash, 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, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put Grok 4.7 ahead: it leads there by 8.2 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: Grok 4.7 costs about 21x as much per script as Qwen3.8 Flash.
| Grok 4.7 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 87.6 | 83.2 |
| Writing Elo | 2143 | 1676 |
| Score spread across drafts (± overall std) | 2.490 | 1.920 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.267 | 0.013 |
| Avg time per script (min) | 7.7 | 5.7 |
| 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 4.7 · Qwen3.8 Flash. The whole scoring pipeline is on the methodology page.
← All comparisons