Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 Max
Too close to call on our weighted score (Apertus 70B 33, Qwen3 Max 31). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Max
31/100- ECI142.4
- Price$1.20 / $6.00
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Apertus 70B 33/100, Qwen3 Max 31/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Apertus 70B on price and Qwen3 Max 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 · Qwen3 Max $2.40 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 MaxQwen3 Max 262,144 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 70B: Text · Qwen3 Max: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 46 | 32 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 31/100 |
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 | Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 142.4 |
| ECI rank | — | #91 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 72.6% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 19.0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 73.3% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 48.8% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.82 (best) | $1.20 |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $2.40 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen3-max |
| API providers | 3 | 16 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Sep 23, 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
- Qwen3 Max$24.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B or Qwen3 Max?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Apertus 70B 33/100, Qwen3 Max 31/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Apertus 70B on price and Qwen3 Max 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 or Qwen3 Max?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Qwen3 Max costs $1.20 input / $6.00 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 $2.40 for Qwen3 Max (2× 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 Qwen3 Max has an ECI of 142.4.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B and Qwen3 Max 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?
Qwen3 Max has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Qwen3 Max up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Qwen3 Max accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen3 Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 Max is the newest, released Sep 23, 2025. Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, Qwen3 Max 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingThree-way comparison
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Apertus 70B vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
- Apertus 70B vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
- Apertus 70B vs Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
- Qwen3 Max vs Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic · ECI 142.4
- Qwen3 Max vs Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI · ECI 141.4
