Apertus 70B vs Palmyra X5 vs QVQ Max
Palmyra X5 comes out ahead, 48 to 40 and 33 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 37% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
- Our pick
Writer
Palmyra X5
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $6.00
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)QVQ Max
40/100- ECI—
- Price$1.20 / $4.80
- Context131K
Palmyra X5 is our pick
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against QVQ Max (40) and Apertus 70B (33). It leads on 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 · Palmyra X5 $1.95 · QVQ Max $2.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPalmyra X5Palmyra X5 1,000,000 · QVQ Max 131,072 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsPalmyra X5 and QVQ MaxApertus 70B: Text · Palmyra X5: Text, Images · QVQ Max: Text, Images
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Palmyra X5 | QVQ Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 46 | 36 | 35 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 60 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 48/100 | 40/100 |
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 | Palmyra X5Writer | QVQ MaxAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.82 | $0.60 (best) | $1.20 |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $6.00 | $4.80 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $1.95 | $2.10 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 1 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | qvq-max |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 | Mar 25, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | — | Apr 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
- Palmyra X5$18.00
- QVQ Max$21.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B, Palmyra X5 or QVQ Max?
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against QVQ Max (40) and Apertus 70B (33). It leads on 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, Palmyra X5 or QVQ Max?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Palmyra X5 costs $0.60 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); QVQ Max costs $1.20 input / $4.80 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 $1.95 for Palmyra X5 (1.6× as much) and $2.10 for QVQ Max (1.7× 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, Palmyra X5 has not been scored yet and QVQ Max has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B, Palmyra X5 and QVQ Max yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Palmyra X5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for QVQ Max and 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Palmyra X5 up to 8,192, QVQ Max up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Palmyra X5 accepts text and images; QVQ Max accepts text and images. Palmyra X5 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; Palmyra X5 and QVQ Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Palmyra X5 came out Apr 28, 2025; QVQ Max came out Mar 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, QVQ Max Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
