Apertus 70B vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) comes out ahead, 52 to 32 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 22% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
- Our pick
xAIGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
52/100- ECI—
- Price$1.25 / $2.50
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is our pick
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceApertus 70BApertus 70B $1.22 · Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) $1.56 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 1,000,000 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Apertus 70B: Text · Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 44 | 39 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 52/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 70BSwiss AI | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)xAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.82 (best) | $1.25 |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $2.50 |
| Cached input | — | $0.20 |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $1.56 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 200K: $2.50 / $5.00 |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official xAI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 30,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning |
| API providers | 3 | 13 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Mar 9, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 70B$13.04
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)$17.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 70B or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs $1.25 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official xAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $1.56 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Apertus 70B has not been scored yet and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) up to 30,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts text, images and PDFs. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the newest, released Mar 9, 2026. Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Kimi K2 Instruct 0905Three-way comparison
- Apertus 70B vs Kimi K2 Instruct 0905Moonshot AI
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Apertus 70B vs Hermes 4 405BNous Research
- Apertus 70B vs Morph V3 LargeMorph
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiMo-V2-ProXiaomi
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs GLM-5-TurboZ.ai (Zhipu)
