Grok Code Fast 1 vs ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B vs Qwen3-VL Plus
Qwen3-VL Plus comes out ahead, 58 to 48 and 43 on our weighted score, though ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B is 12% cheaper per token.
xAIGrok Code Fast 1
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.50
- Context256K
BaiduERNIE 4.5 300B A47B
43/100- ECI—
- Price$0.28 / $1.10
- Context131K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3-VL Plus
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.60
- Context262K
Qwen3-VL Plus is our pick
Qwen3-VL Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Grok Code Fast 1 (48) and ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B (43). It leads on inputs & features. ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 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 priceERNIE 4.5 300B A47BERNIE 4.5 300B A47B $0.485 · Grok Code Fast 1 $0.525 · Qwen3-VL Plus $0.55 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3-VL PlusQwen3-VL Plus 262,144 · Grok Code Fast 1 256,000 · ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3-VL PlusGrok Code Fast 1: Text · ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B: Text · Qwen3-VL Plus: Text, Images
- Self-hostingERNIE 4.5 300B A47BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Grok Code Fast 1 | ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B | Qwen3-VL Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 60 | 62 | 60 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 25 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 43/100 | 58/100 |
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 | Grok Code Fast 1xAI | ERNIE 4.5 300B A47BBaidu | Qwen3-VL PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | $0.28 | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $1.50 | $1.10 (best) | $1.60 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.04 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $0.485 (best) | $0.55 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.30 / $2.40 |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | Median of 1 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 10,000 tokens | 12,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | qwen3-vl-plus |
| API providers | 7 (best) | 1 | 6 |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jun 30, 2025 | Sep 23, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | 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.
- Grok Code Fast 1$5.00
- ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B$5.00
- Qwen3-VL Plus$5.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Grok Code Fast 1, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B or Qwen3-VL Plus?
Qwen3-VL Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Grok Code Fast 1 (48) and ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B (43). It leads on inputs & features. ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 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, Grok Code Fast 1, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B or Qwen3-VL Plus?
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B is cheaper at $0.28 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Grok Code Fast 1 costs $0.20 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers); Qwen3-VL Plus costs $0.20 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.485 per million tokens for ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B versus $0.525 for Grok Code Fast 1 (1.1× as much) and $0.55 for Qwen3-VL Plus (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Grok Code Fast 1 has not been scored yet, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B has not been scored yet and Qwen3-VL Plus has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Grok Code Fast 1, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B and Qwen3-VL Plus 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?
Qwen3-VL Plus has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Grok Code Fast 1 and 131,072 for ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B. Maximum output per response: Grok Code Fast 1 up to 10,000, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B up to 12,000, Qwen3-VL Plus up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Grok Code Fast 1 accepts text; ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B accepts text; Qwen3-VL Plus accepts text and images. Qwen3-VL Plus handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Grok Code Fast 1 and Qwen3-VL Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3-VL Plus is the newest, released Sep 23, 2025. Grok Code Fast 1 came out Sep 2, 2025; ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B came out Jun 30, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3-VL Plus 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 Nov 2, 2026.
