Apertus 70B vs Palmyra X5 vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)
Palmyra X5 comes out ahead, 48 to 34 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)Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)
34/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $6.00
- Context131K
Palmyra X5 is our pick
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) (34) and Apertus 70B (33). 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 · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) $1.88 · Palmyra X5 $1.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPalmyra X5Palmyra X5 1,000,000 · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) 131,072 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsPalmyra X5Apertus 70B: Text · Palmyra X5: Text, Images · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking): Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70B and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)Publishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Palmyra X5 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 46 | 36 | 37 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 60 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 48/100 | 34/100 |
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 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)Alibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.82 | $0.60 | $0.50 (best) |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $6.00 | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $1.95 | $1.88 |
| 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 | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| 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 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | qwen3-next-80b-a3b-thinking |
| API providers | 3 | 1 | 10 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 | Sep 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | — | Apr 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
- Palmyra X5$18.00
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)$17.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B, Palmyra X5 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)?
Palmyra X5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) (34) and Apertus 70B (33). 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, Palmyra X5 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking)?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) costs $0.50 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Palmyra X5 costs $0.60 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $1.88 for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) (1.5× as much) and $1.95 for Palmyra X5 (1.6× 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 Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B, Palmyra X5 and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) 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 Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) and 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Palmyra X5 up to 8,192, Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Palmyra X5 accepts text and images; Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) accepts text. Palmyra X5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Palmyra X5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) came out Sep 2025; Palmyra X5 came out Apr 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B (Thinking) Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
