⇄ Korean LLM comparison
HyperCLOVA X (THINK) vs A.X 4.0
Independent attribute comparison. A paid diagnostic measures these on your own 20 prompts.
✦Independent · zero vendor funding·Page sources checked 2026-07-13·Methodology & sources ↗
| HyperCLOVA X (THINK) | A.X 4.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Naver | SK Telecom |
| Params | 비공개 (오픈웨이트 32B Think 별도 공개) | 72B / 7B Light |
| Context | — | 131.072K |
| License | License verification needed | License verification needed |
| Pricing | NCloud CLOVA Studio per-token pricing (verify on console). | Open weights, self-host / on-prem. Based on Qwen2.5 with added Korean training. |
| Source check | 2026-07-13 | 2026-07-13 |
| Korean strength | Strong Korean reasoning/search (high on Korean benchmarks); tight Korean data/search integration. | KMMLU 78.3 (> GPT-4o 72.5); ~33% better Korean token efficiency than GPT-4o. |
| Best for | Korean search/chat, Domestic work documents, Naver ecosystem | On-prem enterprise, Cost-sensitive Korean work, Data-sovereignty needs |
↗ Model data sources
✦ How to decide
- ›License & hosting: HyperCLOVA X (THINK) = License verification needed; A.X 4.0 = License verification needed.
- ›Cost depends on your Korean token volume and token efficiency, not list price alone.
- ›Korean quality (honorifics, refusals, long-form) varies by use case — measure, don't assume.
Decide on your own prompts in 48h
48h Diagnostic ₩490,000 · tax invoice available
More comparisons