Apertus 8B vs Qwen Flash
Qwen Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 56 on our weighted score, though Apertus 8B is 9% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Flash
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.40
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen Flash is our pick
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Apertus 8B (56). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 8B 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 8BApertus 8B $0.125 · Qwen Flash $0.138 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen FlashQwen Flash 1,000,000 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 8B: Text · Qwen Flash: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 8BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 8B | Qwen Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 91 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 68/100 |
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 | Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $0.20 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 (best) | $0.138 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen-flash |
| API providers | 1 | 6 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jul 28, 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 8B$1.40
- Qwen Flash$1.30
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 8B or Qwen Flash?
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Apertus 8B (56). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 8B 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 8B or Qwen Flash?
Apertus 8B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen Flash costs $0.05 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $0.138 for Qwen Flash (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Apertus 8B has not been scored yet and Qwen Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 8B and Qwen Flash 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?
Qwen Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 8B up to 8,192, Qwen Flash up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 8B accepts text; Qwen Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 8B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Qwen Flash came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 2025, Qwen Flash 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.
