Apertus 70B vs Jamba Large vs Qwen MT Plus
Too close to call on our weighted score (Apertus 70B 32, Jamba Large 29, Qwen MT Plus 11). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
AI21 LabsJamba Large
29/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $8.00
- Context256K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen MT Plus
11/100- ECI—
- Price$2.46 / $7.37
- Context16K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Apertus 70B 32/100, Jamba Large 29/100, Qwen MT Plus 11/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Apertus 70B on price and Jamba Large for long inputs. 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 · Jamba Large $3.50 · Qwen MT Plus $3.69 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextJamba LargeJamba Large 256,000 · Apertus 70B 65,536 · Qwen MT Plus 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 70B: Text · Jamba Large: Text · Qwen MT Plus: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70B and Jamba LargePublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Jamba Large | Qwen MT Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 44 | 23 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 36 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 29/100 | 11/100 |
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 | Jamba LargeAI21 Labs | Qwen MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.82 (best) | $2.00 | $2.46 |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $8.00 | $7.37 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $3.50 | $3.69 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official AI21 Labs API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | jamba-large | qwen-mt-plus |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jul 3, 2025 | Jul 24, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | Aug 22, 2024 | — |
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
- Jamba Large$36.00
- Qwen MT Plus$39.34
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B, Jamba Large or Qwen MT Plus?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Apertus 70B 32/100, Jamba Large 29/100, Qwen MT Plus 11/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Apertus 70B on price and Jamba Large for long inputs. 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, Jamba Large or Qwen MT Plus?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Jamba Large costs $2.00 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (official AI21 Labs API price); Qwen MT Plus costs $2.46 input / $7.37 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $3.50 for Jamba Large (2.9× as much) and $3.69 for Qwen MT Plus (3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Apertus 70B has not been scored yet, Jamba Large has not been scored yet and Qwen MT Plus has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B, Jamba Large and Qwen MT Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen MT Plus does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Jamba Large has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B and 16,384 for Qwen MT Plus. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Jamba Large up to 4,096, Qwen MT Plus up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Jamba Large accepts text; Qwen MT Plus accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B and Jamba Large publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen MT Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Qwen MT Plus came out Jul 24, 2025; Jamba Large came out Jul 3, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, Jamba Large Aug 22, 2024.
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.
