Apertus 8B vs GLM-4.5-Air vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5
Apertus 8B comes out ahead, 56 to 50 and 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Air
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.10
- Context131K
NVIDIALlama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $0.40
- Context131K
Apertus 8B is our pick
Apertus 8B is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (50) and GLM-4.5-Air (49). It leads 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 8BApertus 8B $0.125 · Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 $0.40 · GLM-4.5-Air $0.425 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-4.5-Air and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5GLM-4.5-Air 131,072 · Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 8B: Text · GLM-4.5-Air: Text · Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 8B | GLM-4.5-Air | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 68 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 49/100 | 50/100 |
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 8BSwiss AI | GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu) | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5NVIDIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.20 | $0.40 |
| Output | $0.20 (best) | $1.10 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 (best) | $0.425 | $0.40 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Z.AI API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 98,304 tokens | 131,072 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 | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | glm-4.5-air | nvidia/llama-3.3-nemotron-super-49b-v1.5 |
| API providers | 1 | 13 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jul 28, 2025 | Jul 25, 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 8B$1.40
- GLM-4.5-Air$4.20
- Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 8B, GLM-4.5-Air or Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5?
Apertus 8B is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (50) and GLM-4.5-Air (49). It leads 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 8B, GLM-4.5-Air or Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5?
Apertus 8B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 costs $0.40 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider; free on Nvidia); GLM-4.5-Air costs $0.20 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.125 per million tokens for Apertus 8B versus $0.40 for Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 (3.2× as much) and $0.425 for GLM-4.5-Air (3.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Apertus 8B has not been scored yet, GLM-4.5-Air has not been scored yet and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 8B, GLM-4.5-Air and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 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?
GLM-4.5-Air and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 8B up to 8,192, GLM-4.5-Air up to 98,304, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 8B accepts text; GLM-4.5-Air accepts text; Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. GLM-4.5-Air came out Jul 28, 2025; Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 came out Jul 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 2025, GLM-4.5-Air 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.
